Bill and Melinda Gates: America’s Top Farmland Owner(landreport.com)
landreport.com
Bill and Melinda Gates: America’s Top Farmland Owner
https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/
462 comments
I enjoy seeing land use comparisons. I think there was one a while ago that showed how much land the US would require to house everyone at Tokyo-level density (not much). Another showed how much land we would need to dedicate to solar panels to power the country (also not much).
Also worth noting here that the 240k acres they own wouldn't get them into the top 10 private landowners in the US.
Edit: One of the solar maps: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-t...
Not the residential density map, but fun: https://www.6sqft.com/believe-it-or-not-the-worlds-entire-po...
The residential density maps: https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/map-if-the-world-li...
Also worth noting here that the 240k acres they own wouldn't get them into the top 10 private landowners in the US.
Edit: One of the solar maps: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-t...
Not the residential density map, but fun: https://www.6sqft.com/believe-it-or-not-the-worlds-entire-po...
The residential density maps: https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/map-if-the-world-li...
I also saw numbers saying a 50 mile by 50 mile piece of land could handle all of America's trash for 100 years if used as a landfill.
Always struck me as interesting in that you could easily section off a chunk of desert, properly sort and encapsulate the trash. At the same time fund research into ways to do recycling that is more cost efficient and more environmental friendly with regard to chemicals used, etc. Then once you have better tech for a certain class of garbage, go process it in bulk.
Of course humans being humans, we'd probably not bother to fund the research, not do upkeep on the encapsulation material and mess up the ground water, etc. Still interesting to think about just having one or two national trash dumps.
Always struck me as interesting in that you could easily section off a chunk of desert, properly sort and encapsulate the trash. At the same time fund research into ways to do recycling that is more cost efficient and more environmental friendly with regard to chemicals used, etc. Then once you have better tech for a certain class of garbage, go process it in bulk.
Of course humans being humans, we'd probably not bother to fund the research, not do upkeep on the encapsulation material and mess up the ground water, etc. Still interesting to think about just having one or two national trash dumps.
At some point in time that would become the most valuable property: it would contain all of the resources that society needs.
Most interesting for nuclear waste.
Storage of long lived nuclear waste is often considered a major problem. There are suggestions of firing them to the sun (worst idea ever), burring them in subduction zones (a bit more sensible) or in special sites with plenty of warning for future generations (artists get creative on this one).
The thing is, nuclear waste may actually be among the most valuable things on earth. These elements do not exist in nature, and producing them require nuclear reactors and enriched uranium, which is a finite resource.
Even today we have the technology to burn nuclear waste in fast breeder reactors, though for some reason we haven't made a lot of progress, maybe it is not commercially viable compared to more conventional reactors. This has the potential to supply us with energy for so long that we can effectively consider it renewable energy.
All that to say that in the future, nuclear "waste" may become extremely valuable. I find one particularly ironic quote from a suggested warning message for long term nuclear waste storage sites. "This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here." I find it extremely dismissive of future humanity, as if we somehow reach the peak of technological progress and that future generations will be cavemen.
Storage of long lived nuclear waste is often considered a major problem. There are suggestions of firing them to the sun (worst idea ever), burring them in subduction zones (a bit more sensible) or in special sites with plenty of warning for future generations (artists get creative on this one).
The thing is, nuclear waste may actually be among the most valuable things on earth. These elements do not exist in nature, and producing them require nuclear reactors and enriched uranium, which is a finite resource.
Even today we have the technology to burn nuclear waste in fast breeder reactors, though for some reason we haven't made a lot of progress, maybe it is not commercially viable compared to more conventional reactors. This has the potential to supply us with energy for so long that we can effectively consider it renewable energy.
All that to say that in the future, nuclear "waste" may become extremely valuable. I find one particularly ironic quote from a suggested warning message for long term nuclear waste storage sites. "This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here." I find it extremely dismissive of future humanity, as if we somehow reach the peak of technological progress and that future generations will be cavemen.
> though for some reason we haven't made a lot of progress
The risk that reprocessing can produce weapons-grade plutonium has been one reason. [1] Frustrating not only because it makes it unavailable as an energy source, but, as I understand it, the waste products from fast breeder reactors generally have much shorter half-lives than the current waste.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf
The risk that reprocessing can produce weapons-grade plutonium has been one reason. [1] Frustrating not only because it makes it unavailable as an energy source, but, as I understand it, the waste products from fast breeder reactors generally have much shorter half-lives than the current waste.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf
At what point does the cost of global warming exceed the (huge) cost of adequately securing the reprocessing pipeline?
The decision not to do reprocessing was based on 1970s cost/benefit analysis. We're in a different world now.
The decision not to do reprocessing was based on 1970s cost/benefit analysis. We're in a different world now.
It’s meant for a worst-case scenario. Of course if we somehow happen to keep ourselves together and progressing technologically we’ll look back at ourselves in the 21st century as buffoons who created highly valuable materials and buried it as waste.
And you have your personal inroads on the sorting technology to capitalise on that! ;)
I already had one recycling company come to talk about applying the tech to sorting waste. It never came to anything concrete though.
I could use it to sort the kids' Lego-covered bedroom! Make a handheld version that accepts a certain colour at a time and spits anything else back to the pile to simplify from a range of bins to more of a yes/no operation.
Interesting idea, that's worth thinking about. It still has the bad part of the complexity: the feed mechanism. But it could be used as a set extractor that way, and if you start with the largest sets you get the least # of bricks passing through.
You can be sure that once all the fossil fuels are gone, and society has collapsed beyond the point of return, the remaining humans will be mining our dumps for useful items. Wars will be fought over these scraps.
We’re already mining landfills actually. Pretty interesting concept if you ask me. The concentration of valuable elements is far higher than what you’d find in the wild.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_mining
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_mining
I like to think that a long time from now, people will marvel that we overlooked the (as of yet undiscovered) utility of used scoopable cat litter, and just threw it out with the trash
We already did this in the past for dog poop: https://www.vettimes.co.uk/app/uploads/wp-post-to-pdf-enhanc...
The logistics of ferrying all trash to that singular location would be ... (edit: a major undertaking).
Rail guns! Pods full of compacted trash launch out to a 'catch' zone using rail guns.
Sounds like a great backdrop for the next dystopian sci-fi film.
Dull thuds in the distance as dark masses streak across the sky every 10 minutes.
Dull thuds in the distance as dark masses streak across the sky every 10 minutes.
Look up Infinite Jest.
> Sounds like a great backdrop for the next dystopian sci-fi film.
Futurama Season 1 Episode 8, "A Big Piece of Garbage": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Big_Piece_of_Garbage
Futurama Season 1 Episode 8, "A Big Piece of Garbage": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Big_Piece_of_Garbage
I guess the garbage trains from New York City would have to go further.
But, it could be made relatively efficient by using trains to haul trash long-distance.
ECDC Environmental is massive: https://youtu.be/6omwOGWGQXs
Edit: in Utah
Edit: in Utah
There would be a whole ecosystem of scavengers, the human type, looking for valuable trash. It's amazing what cheap think of yesteryear is worth quite a bit today because of materials changes, or longevity, or nostalgia, etc.
> section off a chunk of desert
Amusing. Why not a section of marsh? Or river delta?
#LizardLivesMatter
Amusing. Why not a section of marsh? Or river delta?
#LizardLivesMatter
I assume that's less geologically stable and more prone to water dispersing undesirable chemicals. I think "chunk of desert" is reasonably understood as something remote and stable. When they've researched locations in Australia for long-term nuclear dumps, the favoured locations have been underground in remote desert.
Regarding solar, you don't really need much land. Most residential homes can install it on their roof and this also applies to flat industrial building which do not consume a lot of energy. This also makes your solar production decentralized.
As I understand it, the challenge is syncing when changing from standalone to integrated modes. The challenge is such that most home PV can’t operate standalone.
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/synchronizing-small-scal...
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/synchronizing-small-scal...
> As I understand it, the challenge is syncing when changing from standalone to integrated modes.
It's not challenge to switch from grid-connected to off-grid mode. The reason that solar PV systems today shut down during grid outages today is to protect line workers from current feeding back to to the grid from the PV - which is to say the automatic shutoff is there by design.
Home battery storage systems, however, have transfer switches that automatically "island" the PV system from the grid in the event of an outage so that it can continue to produce power.
> The challenge is such that most home PV can’t operate standalone.
Decentralized != Off-grid
It's not challenge to switch from grid-connected to off-grid mode. The reason that solar PV systems today shut down during grid outages today is to protect line workers from current feeding back to to the grid from the PV - which is to say the automatic shutoff is there by design.
Home battery storage systems, however, have transfer switches that automatically "island" the PV system from the grid in the event of an outage so that it can continue to produce power.
> The challenge is such that most home PV can’t operate standalone.
Decentralized != Off-grid
My guess installation on residential roof is probably 10x more expensive vs just dropping bunch of panels en masse in a dessert.
I'd guess it's the other way around. A roof is a flat and stable surface, close to infrastructure (roads, power lines). In the desert, you have to (literally) lay the groundwork first.
>> decentralized
Much easier to actually use
Much easier to actually use
There's a fun book Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition which includes a small section about possible upper limit for density of human population on earth. I think it was over 1 trillion. Fun book!
One today also suggested how we could give every home in America a sea view!
A tempting proposition indeed (well for the next 20 years, less so after that).
I suppose the problems arise when infrastructure has to be built for those linear communities (Dutch word of the day:'lintdorp', or ribbon-village). Because suddenly the average population density is awful and we have to drive a lot, build more schools and hospitals, etc. Not to mention the poor sods that have a 500 km commute to work the land so that the rest of us can eat >:-)
I suppose the problems arise when infrastructure has to be built for those linear communities (Dutch word of the day:'lintdorp', or ribbon-village). Because suddenly the average population density is awful and we have to drive a lot, build more schools and hospitals, etc. Not to mention the poor sods that have a 500 km commute to work the land so that the rest of us can eat >:-)
Somebody should tell these people:
https://www.designboom.com/architecture/saudi-arabia-the-lin...
I'm not convinced it's not vapourstructure given how ridiculous it seems.
https://www.designboom.com/architecture/saudi-arabia-the-lin...
I'm not convinced it's not vapourstructure given how ridiculous it seems.
> A city with services driven by AI
That's some tell-tale bullshit right here.
That said, the video is very interesting. As well as branding - The Line. Would work very well as a setting in a sci-fi movie or a videogame.
That's some tell-tale bullshit right here.
That said, the video is very interesting. As well as branding - The Line. Would work very well as a setting in a sci-fi movie or a videogame.
Would be interesting to see the map, I couldn't find it with a quick search.
There is ~4ft of shoreline in the US per household, which gives me some notion of what the packing would look like.
There is ~4ft of shoreline in the US per household, which gives me some notion of what the packing would look like.
We can build up though. I might be worth 4 feet of shoreline, but my 40 foot sea view apartment is in a 50 floor apartment building, which leaves a lot of the shoreline unpopulated.
That assumes everyone wants shore view. With young kids I prefer my house to be far away from places weak/non swimmers can drawn. I know many other reasons why someone would choose to not live somewhere far from the sea if they get a choice.
That assumes everyone wants shore view. With young kids I prefer my house to be far away from places weak/non swimmers can drawn. I know many other reasons why someone would choose to not live somewhere far from the sea if they get a choice.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say "so it doesn't work". Obviously multi-story houses and houses not right on the shore have sea views.
> With young kids I prefer my house to be far away from places weak/non swimmers can drown.
That rules out whole countries. And misses all the fun of having water nearby. The chances of that happening are so vanishingly small that it probably is a bad guide as to where you want your kids to grow up.
That rules out whole countries. And misses all the fun of having water nearby. The chances of that happening are so vanishingly small that it probably is a bad guide as to where you want your kids to grow up.
~1000 American kids die a year from drowning - the rate has went down since pool fences became common. I'm not sure it's quite "vanishingly rare", though of course it's not common.
Your mention of pool fences implies that moving away from the sea doesn't necessarily help keep your kids safe from drowning.
> my 40 foot sea view apartment is in a 50 floor apartment building
So the buildings would double as a tsunami wall? Interesting, though kind of self-defeating.
So the buildings would double as a tsunami wall? Interesting, though kind of self-defeating.
Sorry, not an actual map. Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I'll try to find it.
if we cover all the shoreline with 10 story apartment buildings, it could be 40 ft per household! the larger problem would be having an acceptable amount of green space on the other side I think.
You can stack households on top of each other.
I wonder how efficient this would be for mass transit? One light rail line for short distances, heavy rail for longer ones and high speed rail for really long distance would be able to get you to every home in the country. Cities already grow a bit like this organically.
I've recently discovered that my country (Lithuania) offers solar park shares for residential customer (who mostly live in apartments). Coupled with some p2p lending that could easily convert millions of people to solar power with little of difference in monthly cost (well quick math says +50% for first 10 years, then -90% till panels decay).
Retrofitting roofs with panels seems wildly inefficient compared with using robots to plant thousands of panels few hundred miles away.
n.b. you do get slightly dicked by 'maintenance fees', but those probably gonna go down with time.
Retrofitting roofs with panels seems wildly inefficient compared with using robots to plant thousands of panels few hundred miles away.
n.b. you do get slightly dicked by 'maintenance fees', but those probably gonna go down with time.
A timber company here owns 500,000+ acres spanning parts of 2 states.
Doesn't hold much of a candle to Weyerhaeuser which owns more than 12 million acres.
Doesn't hold much of a candle to Weyerhaeuser which owns more than 12 million acres.
Weyerhaeuser got that land by inducing the railroads to commit Timber and Stone Act fraud, and then buying the fraudulently obtained property from them.
Do they actually own it or do they hold leases?
I know it is a subtle thing, but I am just curious. If you know which it is I would like to hear. Thanks.
I know it is a subtle thing, but I am just curious. If you know which it is I would like to hear. Thanks.
Directly owned.
I saw a density map for the Tokyo area compared to California. Tokyo is equivalent to taking the entire population of CA and packing them into the city of Los Angeles.
>Another showed how much land we would need to dedicate to solar panels to power the country (also not much).
Indeed. I seem to recall seeing that you could power the entire western hemisphere with just a Texas-sized solar farm.
Indeed. I seem to recall seeing that you could power the entire western hemisphere with just a Texas-sized solar farm.
> _just_ a Texas-sized solar farm
Have you seen Texas? Boy howdy. That's 23,155 Noor Power Stations[0]. Scaling costs linearly, that's $58 trillion[1].
[0] 268597 (tx) / 11.6 (noor) square miles
[1] $2.5b * 23,155
Have you seen Texas? Boy howdy. That's 23,155 Noor Power Stations[0]. Scaling costs linearly, that's $58 trillion[1].
[0] 268597 (tx) / 11.6 (noor) square miles
[1] $2.5b * 23,155
Aye, but op has misremembered. A Texas-sizes PV farm with 20% efficient cells, and assuming 25% duty cycle for night and winter, would produce ~35 terawatts.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=texas%20area%20%2A%2010...
Worldwide power consumption is about 18 TW, electricity is about 3 TW.
And current PV looks like it’s good for 20+ years so you’re getting that power at about $3 trillion per year. The only reference I can find to current energy costs is this from Wikipedia:
"""In 2010, expenditures on energy totaled over US$6 trillion, or about 10% of the world gross domestic product (GDP)""" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
On that basis, you’d be getting roughly twice as many exajoules for roughly half as many USD.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=texas%20area%20%2A%2010...
Worldwide power consumption is about 18 TW, electricity is about 3 TW.
And current PV looks like it’s good for 20+ years so you’re getting that power at about $3 trillion per year. The only reference I can find to current energy costs is this from Wikipedia:
"""In 2010, expenditures on energy totaled over US$6 trillion, or about 10% of the world gross domestic product (GDP)""" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
On that basis, you’d be getting roughly twice as many exajoules for roughly half as many USD.
Most PVs nowadays are guaranteed for 25 years and expected to last well north of 30 years. Some Chinese cos give 30 year warranties. BYD on its site also mention 50 year lifespans.
So we could halve our energy expenses ... but we aren't doing it? Why not?
We are doing it. PV is growing as fast as people can build factories and install panels.
(Also: Quarter of the expenses if you keep power use the same: It’s half cost for double the energy)
(Also: Quarter of the expenses if you keep power use the same: It’s half cost for double the energy)
Ah, interesting. So are these PV workers in crazy high demand then? I feel like I haven't heard about the kind of wild growth in the PV industry that one would expect from such a significant endeavor?
Growth has been close to exponential since 1992, with an average doubling period of 2.2 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
(Someone should update the “Grid parity for solar PV around the world”, that map was last edited in 2015)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
(Someone should update the “Grid parity for solar PV around the world”, that map was last edited in 2015)
Also, you wouldn't have to power as many Texans. More for everyone else.
That's big, but so is the western hemisphere. 58 trillion USD to power the entire western hemisphere seems... Pretty reasonable? Assuming it depreciates over 30 years that's about 2 trillion per year, or "only" about double what the USA spends yearly on its military.
Spending 58 trillion on solar panels would probably induce some pretty good economies of scale, too. What kind of volume discounts do you get on a 15 digit purchase order?
And increase the base price of materials to outset gains but hopefully create a scale for materials that reduces price over time.
@mywittyname Nay, you MAKE the factories.
[deleted]
I assume at that point you just buy the factories.
At that scale you have to buy the factories that make the factories.
In 2010, expenditures on energy totaled over US$6 trillion, or about 10% of the world gross domestic product (GDP).
58T is the opposite of pretty reasonable.
Even if you could assume it wouldn't need any maintenance, which you can't, it's too much money for anything.
58T is the opposite of pretty reasonable.
Even if you could assume it wouldn't need any maintenance, which you can't, it's too much money for anything.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, you are exactly correct.
60T is 10x more than global energy expenditure in 2010, and that's just for the Western Hemisphere, which I'm fairly certain expends significantly less energy then the Eastern.
Edit: just checked, and I was correct. In 2010, Western Hemi energy demand was ~130 PBtu, while Easter Hemi demand was ~330 PBtu[1], or 2.5x more.
So at this same price point, it would be 210T to power the whole world with solar, or 50% more than global GDP in 2019 (but only using 2010 energy consumption numbers, so it's actually much more). And of course you'd need to keep adding more solar as demand went up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
60T is 10x more than global energy expenditure in 2010, and that's just for the Western Hemisphere, which I'm fairly certain expends significantly less energy then the Eastern.
Edit: just checked, and I was correct. In 2010, Western Hemi energy demand was ~130 PBtu, while Easter Hemi demand was ~330 PBtu[1], or 2.5x more.
So at this same price point, it would be 210T to power the whole world with solar, or 50% more than global GDP in 2019 (but only using 2010 energy consumption numbers, so it's actually much more). And of course you'd need to keep adding more solar as demand went up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
You wouldn't have to keep spending that amount every year though. A solar panel lasts for several decades and maintenance (especially at scale) is way less than a percent per year. I included 30 year depreciation in my calculations for a reason.
But is that maintenance lower than the existing maintenance burden?
Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price. For example, you're also not taking into account any of the things that can't currently be easily electrified, such as passenger jets.
Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price. For example, you're also not taking into account any of the things that can't currently be easily electrified, such as passenger jets.
It'd need to be lower than the existing maintenance plus fuel burden of course, since sunshine is free but oil and coal are not. In any case, if you can't change the power source (as you say, passengers jets are pretty tricky to electrify) then you don't have to build solar panels for those so the upfront cost would go down.
Thinking about it more it would seem likely that as overall oil consumption falls, the relative cost of oil derivatives like jet fuel would go up because the advantages of scale decrease from what they are now. It's a pretty fascinating subject since solar prices seem to follow a Moore's law type price evolution at the moment while oil will get cheaper as well while demand decreases. Presumably there is a balance point somewhere?
Thinking about it more it would seem likely that as overall oil consumption falls, the relative cost of oil derivatives like jet fuel would go up because the advantages of scale decrease from what they are now. It's a pretty fascinating subject since solar prices seem to follow a Moore's law type price evolution at the moment while oil will get cheaper as well while demand decreases. Presumably there is a balance point somewhere?
> But is that maintenance lower than the existing maintenance burden?
While I haven't looked up the data yet, it seems plausible to assume that maintenance on photovoltaic electric generation is not only lower but significantly lower than thermal generation.
For example, having no moving parts in the generation process must be a large maintenance savings, though of course there must be unique costs associated with photovoltaics - cleaning, perhaps?
> Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price.
I just did some quick calculations to check this statement and found it basically true - I estimate the cost of 100% PV solar generation at around $180tn 2019 USD for 30 years of capacity.
For reference, I used these figures:
173,340 TWh energy consumption in 2019 [1] * $35/MWh for utility-scale PV solar[2] * 1,000,000 MWh/TWh = $6.1t yearly energy cost for 100% PV energy production, or $182t over a 30-year lifetime.
This, of course, does not take into account the increase of energy consumption over that period which would raise costs, nor the economies of scale of this level of PV deployment which would surely lower costs, but as a BotE calculation it sounds about right and corresponds with your earlier estimate of $210tn for the same investment. Note also that the $35/MWh figure includes all operating expenses and amortized capital costs i.e. it takes all costs into account already.
However, as you imply with your first question regarding maintenance burden, the correct comparison is not "how much would it cost" but rather "how much would it cost relative to projected costs of energy" - and again per [2], utility PV solar is already cheaper than new utility thermal power generation. There is of course plenty of nuance when it comes to energy consumption - you point out, for example, that aviation will be a difficult sector to "electrify," a true enough statement in and of itself. However, it's pointed out in [3] that jet fuel represents 12% of transportation energy consumption and that transportation overall represents 25% of global energy consumption, implying that aviation only represents about 3% of global energy consumption.
Based on this, I speculate that aviation fuels can be produced in a 100% solar PV energy regime without increasing - and likely lowering - energy production costs above the current regime.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption [2] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 [3] https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/transport-uses-25...
While I haven't looked up the data yet, it seems plausible to assume that maintenance on photovoltaic electric generation is not only lower but significantly lower than thermal generation.
For example, having no moving parts in the generation process must be a large maintenance savings, though of course there must be unique costs associated with photovoltaics - cleaning, perhaps?
> Even then, this is still a wildly conservative estimate in terms of price.
I just did some quick calculations to check this statement and found it basically true - I estimate the cost of 100% PV solar generation at around $180tn 2019 USD for 30 years of capacity.
For reference, I used these figures:
173,340 TWh energy consumption in 2019 [1] * $35/MWh for utility-scale PV solar[2] * 1,000,000 MWh/TWh = $6.1t yearly energy cost for 100% PV energy production, or $182t over a 30-year lifetime.
This, of course, does not take into account the increase of energy consumption over that period which would raise costs, nor the economies of scale of this level of PV deployment which would surely lower costs, but as a BotE calculation it sounds about right and corresponds with your earlier estimate of $210tn for the same investment. Note also that the $35/MWh figure includes all operating expenses and amortized capital costs i.e. it takes all costs into account already.
However, as you imply with your first question regarding maintenance burden, the correct comparison is not "how much would it cost" but rather "how much would it cost relative to projected costs of energy" - and again per [2], utility PV solar is already cheaper than new utility thermal power generation. There is of course plenty of nuance when it comes to energy consumption - you point out, for example, that aviation will be a difficult sector to "electrify," a true enough statement in and of itself. However, it's pointed out in [3] that jet fuel represents 12% of transportation energy consumption and that transportation overall represents 25% of global energy consumption, implying that aviation only represents about 3% of global energy consumption.
Based on this, I speculate that aviation fuels can be produced in a 100% solar PV energy regime without increasing - and likely lowering - energy production costs above the current regime.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption [2] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019 [3] https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/transport-uses-25...
I assume you wouldn't have to rebuild it every year.
I wouldn't call it small, I'd call impractical at best.
If thats small, how can you describe the size of nuclear power plants required to do the same job?
And power plants would be way smaller and aren't impractical.
If thats small, how can you describe the size of nuclear power plants required to do the same job?
And power plants would be way smaller and aren't impractical.
Agreed. And covering that amount of land mass would have profound environmental impacts.
Solar efficiency has improved significantly since that stat as panels went from 13-14% to 18-20%. Which brings land area down to more like 10k square miles.
From wikipedia:
The plant will be able to store solar energy in the form of heated molten salt, allowing for production of electricity into the night. Phase 1 comes with a full- load molten salt storage capacity of 3 hours. Noor II, commissioned in 2018, and Noor III, commissioned in January 2019, store energy for up to eight hours.
Very cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station
The plant will be able to store solar energy in the form of heated molten salt, allowing for production of electricity into the night. Phase 1 comes with a full- load molten salt storage capacity of 3 hours. Noor II, commissioned in 2018, and Noor III, commissioned in January 2019, store energy for up to eight hours.
Very cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station
[deleted]
In the context of powering an entire continent, it's still small.
I'm not at all familiar with this domain, but wouldn't this kind of farm be incredibly vulnerable to a foreign threat?
Indeed.
If the entire planet resided in TX, each person would get 1100 sq feet to themselves. That's a very large 1BR, good sized 2BR apt.
If the entire planet resided in TX, each person would get 1100 sq feet to themselves. That's a very large 1BR, good sized 2BR apt.
Back of the envelope tells me you can power the whole world's current energy needs, not just electricity, with an area that's 3/4 of Texas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B3Vtm-bk8NIntYc8mZRw...
Getting 10x our total energy would only require half the Sahara. We have plenty of deserted place for this if that's what we wanted to do. Transporting and storing that energy is more the issue, which is why hydro/wind/solar mixes aided by batteries/nuclear are probably what we'll be focusing on for the next few decades.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B3Vtm-bk8NIntYc8mZRw...
Getting 10x our total energy would only require half the Sahara. We have plenty of deserted place for this if that's what we wanted to do. Transporting and storing that energy is more the issue, which is why hydro/wind/solar mixes aided by batteries/nuclear are probably what we'll be focusing on for the next few decades.
You’re missing the fact that that area you’re trying to put panels on is not perfectly flat, and existing animals/plants/rivers live there.
Please, feel free to use the deserts in Africa. I can assure you, there are hardly any animals and rivers there. Plenty of man power to do maintenance work too and the sun shines bright like a diamond.
The problem with such a figure is people assume that means we would become energy sustainable, but there are tons of non-electrical energy usages that also need to be replaced with electrical processes. And unfortunately those processes that aren't electrical already are that way usually because it is way less efficient, and thus requires significantly more electricity generation to make up for the loss in efficiency. Fertilizer production for example uses lots of natural gas, replacing that natural gas with an electro-chemical process is possible and we know how to do it, but it also means the energy requirements rise nearly 10x as much, thus requiring significantly more panels to make up for it. And that is the same for the majority of chemical reagent production and material processing methods.
So while im all for solar and hope we build tons of it, I don't see it becoming the primary energy generation source of the world any time soon. The solar farms that we would need will be the biggest man made wonders in the world, which I don't see as all that feasible in our economic and political environment.
So while im all for solar and hope we build tons of it, I don't see it becoming the primary energy generation source of the world any time soon. The solar farms that we would need will be the biggest man made wonders in the world, which I don't see as all that feasible in our economic and political environment.
Could we continue using fossil fuels for processes like that and use excess solar and wind for carbon capture to offset emissions from those processes?
Or we could do nuclear instead for a vastly smaller footprint.
For some values of "could". If your country hasn't built a working public nuclear power plant in several decades, at what point should we switch from "could" to "couldn't"? The UK built several in the 1960s, now we have one in progress built by France, which is 10x more expensive, overbudget, delayed, and I wouldn't be certain of it ever being finished until I see it.
Last time I looked, the USA was in a similar position. Hasn't started building one in at least 40 years[1] and the one I saw on that list finishing in 1990 (Seabrook) I thought might be more recent, says it was permitted in 1976, took 14 years to get Unit 1 working and Unit 2 was cancelled due to delays, and cost overruns. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
The current 92 of them provided 20% of the USA's electricity generation. So you'd need another 368 to do the other 80%. How long will they take to build, 15 years each? 55 years to go all nuclear, assuming you build ten at a time. How do you get from "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
Last time I looked, the USA was in a similar position. Hasn't started building one in at least 40 years[1] and the one I saw on that list finishing in 1990 (Seabrook) I thought might be more recent, says it was permitted in 1976, took 14 years to get Unit 1 working and Unit 2 was cancelled due to delays, and cost overruns. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
The current 92 of them provided 20% of the USA's electricity generation. So you'd need another 368 to do the other 80%. How long will they take to build, 15 years each? 55 years to go all nuclear, assuming you build ten at a time. How do you get from "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
> "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in 40 years" to "we could build 10 at a time continuously for the next half-century" in a convincing way?
The same way we were like let's go to the moon, build the transcontinental railroad or some nuclear bombs. Everything is a hell of a lot easier and possible if you have alignment.
As with most technical projects, the technical problem is usually not the barrier to achievement.
The same way we were like let's go to the moon, build the transcontinental railroad or some nuclear bombs. Everything is a hell of a lot easier and possible if you have alignment.
As with most technical projects, the technical problem is usually not the barrier to achievement.
Did I say ten at a time? I meant 120 at a time. (15 years for 120, 15 years for 240, 15 years for 360 (Assuming the demand for power does not increase in the next half-century)).
One moon rocket, in an age of rocketry, competing with the Russians. 120 continuous nuclear power plants in an age of struggling to build a train line in California. One moon rocket to visit the moon which would look amazing, versus fighting climate change which the incumbent President thinks is a hoax. Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".
One moon rocket, in an age of rocketry, competing with the Russians. 120 continuous nuclear power plants in an age of struggling to build a train line in California. One moon rocket to visit the moon which would look amazing, versus fighting climate change which the incumbent President thinks is a hoax. Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".
> Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could".
I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The answer to getting it done is getting alignment from various stakeholders.
Many of the people that think it's a hoax or the ones that don't believe it's doomsday support nuclear plants. That's always been the case in the US.
You can get alignment without even agreeing on why to go nuclear. This escapes the doomsdayers and the climate crusaders. And based on your comment... you.
I mean - you provided a perfect example. You mentioned our outgoing President thinking climate change is a hoax while we are talking about nuclear plants. And he supported nuclear plants.
People with different concerns and end goals can't talk and agree on things that would help both of their agendas.
You want nuclear plants? Pitch national security to one group. Pitch saving the world to the other. Pitch cleaner air to another.
You aren't going to get anything done if you try to convince them that they need to believe your reason.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson's dad told him - it's not enough to be right. You must be effective.
I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The answer to getting it done is getting alignment from various stakeholders.
Many of the people that think it's a hoax or the ones that don't believe it's doomsday support nuclear plants. That's always been the case in the US.
You can get alignment without even agreeing on why to go nuclear. This escapes the doomsdayers and the climate crusaders. And based on your comment... you.
I mean - you provided a perfect example. You mentioned our outgoing President thinking climate change is a hoax while we are talking about nuclear plants. And he supported nuclear plants.
People with different concerns and end goals can't talk and agree on things that would help both of their agendas.
You want nuclear plants? Pitch national security to one group. Pitch saving the world to the other. Pitch cleaner air to another.
You aren't going to get anything done if you try to convince them that they need to believe your reason.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson's dad told him - it's not enough to be right. You must be effective.
Everybody wants energy and a lot of people want low CO2 energy, so the only thing you need to convince people of is the safety of nuclear, which it is, it's just been the marketing campaign for it has been terrible over the past 60 years.
Of course you wouldn't actually put them in Texas, but since this seems to be missed a lot: It hails reasonably frequently in the Midwest (incl. Texas)
Right, you'd put them in the desert. New Mexico and Arizona.
And if power demand increases another order of magnitude? I don’t think anyone seriously argues that 100% of power should come from solar; it’s just a demonstration of relative quantities.
We’re only four of those away from having to choose between a Dyson swarm or ending growth.
I think after two we would probably be able to make our own fusion reactors of whatever size desired. This would avoid having to waste precious terrestrial area or deal with space power transmission.
The origin of the power isn’t the only thing that forces you to make this choice.
If fusion (or anything else) adds four orders of magnitude (~200 PW) of new power at ground level, the new global average blackbody equilibrium temperature would increase from about +15 C to about +70 C.
If fusion (or anything else) adds four orders of magnitude (~200 PW) of new power at ground level, the new global average blackbody equilibrium temperature would increase from about +15 C to about +70 C.
In terms of land ownership, they are outdone by billionaire Stan Kroenke who owns several large ranches in Texas, including Waggoner Ranch, which is over 500,000 acres in size and surrounded by a single fence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggoner_Ranch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggoner_Ranch
That "ranch" has 1,100 oil wells.
Something similar happened to the King Ranch. More oil, less beef.
Something similar happened to the King Ranch. More oil, less beef.
Indeed. I first learned about the megaranches from Edna Ferber's 1952 novel Giant and the transformation is a major theme of the book. (Incidentally, I created an account on some forum while I was reading the book and out of laziness borrowed the name of one of the characters, Jett Rink. I have used that name on the internet ever since.)
I don't think ranches count as farmland -- I mean, ranches aren't farms in any meaningful sense.
It's not, but he said "[i]n terms of land ownership".
Ted Turner has like 2M acres[1]. I can't find it, but I had read a story awhile back where he was trying to acquire enough land where he could ride a horse from like the southern border to the northern on only his land.
John Malone is #1 I guess, but I thought that Ted Turner approach was pretty badass. Ted Turner also has a herd of 50k bison.
"With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the second largest individual landholder in North America. Turner lands are innovatively managed to unite economic viability with ecological sustainability. Turner ranches operate as working businesses, relying on bison, hunting and fishing, and ecotourism as principal enterprises. In addition, Turner ranches support many progressive environmental projects including water resource and timber management, and the reintroduction of native species to the land." [2]
I like that.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-the-top-10-land-owne...
[2] https://www.tedturner.com/turner-ranches/
John Malone is #1 I guess, but I thought that Ted Turner approach was pretty badass. Ted Turner also has a herd of 50k bison.
"With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the second largest individual landholder in North America. Turner lands are innovatively managed to unite economic viability with ecological sustainability. Turner ranches operate as working businesses, relying on bison, hunting and fishing, and ecotourism as principal enterprises. In addition, Turner ranches support many progressive environmental projects including water resource and timber management, and the reintroduction of native species to the land." [2]
I like that.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/who-are-the-top-10-land-owne...
[2] https://www.tedturner.com/turner-ranches/
Meanwhile, there's one cattle station in Australia which is 5,851,000 acres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_Station
Drove through it a few months ago (and another time decades ago). It completely surrounds the township of William Creek, and the main road (well, track) in the area goes through the station for quite some time.
Drove through it a few months ago (and another time decades ago). It completely surrounds the township of William Creek, and the main road (well, track) in the area goes through the station for quite some time.
Hmmm, it looks like there are 330 million acres [516,000 square miles] of "prime" farmland in the United States.
That puts the Gates at around 0.07% of the US farmland.
That puts the Gates at around 0.07% of the US farmland.
Correct, about 330M acres of farmland. Lol, I wouldn't call all 330M prime. Maybe 180-200M are 'prime'. The North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas acres aren't going to win many 'prime' contests. They can produce a profit, yes. But no always a big one
You sure about those examples? I just pulled up the USDA soil survey of some place I've never been, Edmunds County S.D., and it looks to me like over one third of the county is capability class 2 or better, which is considered "prime farmland" or better.
Capability doesn't take into account climate or access to water.
I don't believe that is correct. This classification system considers both. To be in class I or II you need either no or "slight climatic limitations". I found another document that says N.D. has 47% of its area as either classes I or II, making it the third-most-arable state after Iowa and Illinois.
And how many people own as much (or same order of magnitude) as the gates ?
Unclear from my 5 minutes of internet research.
The #5 on their list of farmland owners (the infographic at the top of the page) has ~60% the farmland of the Gates family.
It's also worth noting that #2-5 rank 81, 81, 94, and 99 on the overall 2020 Land Report 100 -- and Gates doesn't rank at all. So a lot of people own a lot more land, but almost no one owns nearly as much farmland in the US.
[1] https://landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/
The #5 on their list of farmland owners (the infographic at the top of the page) has ~60% the farmland of the Gates family.
It's also worth noting that #2-5 rank 81, 81, 94, and 99 on the overall 2020 Land Report 100 -- and Gates doesn't rank at all. So a lot of people own a lot more land, but almost no one owns nearly as much farmland in the US.
[1] https://landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/
thanks
The article is really interesting. And a decent investigative piece. I recommend a full read.
It also confirms what I have always said..most of our food and farmland is controlled by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, pension funds, unions and institutional investment. In the coming decade, all small farms and family farms will disappear. They will only exist as hobby farms or subsidy collecting token farms.
It also confirms what I have always said..most of our food and farmland is controlled by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, pension funds, unions and institutional investment. In the coming decade, all small farms and family farms will disappear. They will only exist as hobby farms or subsidy collecting token farms.
Some of this is by design, food insecurity is one of the largest driver of unrest. Those in the power seats and politicians have a vested interest in taking an active part in the management of agricultural production.
I grew up on a small citrus farm, I saw NAFTA and the migrant worker bills ravage the small farmers first hand. The way it was done was unfair and amounted to a transfer of wealth to these entities but with that being said, I know why they did it. They need economies of scale, as well as the ability to offset risk, the easiest way to do that is to conglomerate the land together so that if there is a loss of production in one area output can be raised in another. This is hard to do with a co-op of independent farmers.
Starving people are dangerous to stability it really is as simple as that, and that is why you see these entities involved in farmlands.
I grew up on a small citrus farm, I saw NAFTA and the migrant worker bills ravage the small farmers first hand. The way it was done was unfair and amounted to a transfer of wealth to these entities but with that being said, I know why they did it. They need economies of scale, as well as the ability to offset risk, the easiest way to do that is to conglomerate the land together so that if there is a loss of production in one area output can be raised in another. This is hard to do with a co-op of independent farmers.
Starving people are dangerous to stability it really is as simple as that, and that is why you see these entities involved in farmlands.
Economies of scale is a real thing. There will always be large farms for food security. Food is too important and essential to be handed down to small farmers. Small farms are super-inefficient.
Having said that, we can’t do away with small farms and family farms. The only way to save it is with automation and labour cost saving tech so it provides enough to be considered a career like any other.
I see it as forming co-ops and co-op hubs. Jellicles Farm is creating Hundred-Acre-Hubs and then co-ops of clusters hubs. I want to focus on small acreage automation. Small robots/cobots swarming in small acreages managed by individual farmers. Labour is 40-60% of cost. And it’s becoming increasingly unreliable and unavailable and expensive for small farmers. Automation is the only way. It will satisfy local food security and niche crops. Commodities will still be grown in large commercial corporate farms as they should be..
Having said that, we can’t do away with small farms and family farms. The only way to save it is with automation and labour cost saving tech so it provides enough to be considered a career like any other.
I see it as forming co-ops and co-op hubs. Jellicles Farm is creating Hundred-Acre-Hubs and then co-ops of clusters hubs. I want to focus on small acreage automation. Small robots/cobots swarming in small acreages managed by individual farmers. Labour is 40-60% of cost. And it’s becoming increasingly unreliable and unavailable and expensive for small farmers. Automation is the only way. It will satisfy local food security and niche crops. Commodities will still be grown in large commercial corporate farms as they should be..
Yes I get it, I remember the day I told my grandfather that I would never scratch a living out of dirt, that I respected him for doing it but that the reality of the world has changed and that it was time for him to sell before he lost everything. That was a hard day, it was his life, and his fathers life. His father and his grandfather moved to Florida and homesteaded the land, it was a hard pill to swallow, but he knew there was no future in it for the future family given the realities that it is the way America was aligning farming resources. I totally get it that is why I convinced him to sell the land, but it sucks when you are on the receiving end of policy set to realign a segment of the American economy, that being said, there are always going to be winners and looser of policy decisions, I am happy with the way life turned out, he was proud of me and the path I choose before he passed.
I was just noting that there was a human toll that happened for all this farm land to be rolled up by the conglomerates. Not implying that it was the wrong decision on the larger geo-political scale.
I would like to see the return of small farms if someone can make it viable, I would not trade the life I lived as a child for anything, but as I said above, I will never again scratch a living out of dirt, unless it is absolutely necessary for my and my families survival.
I was just noting that there was a human toll that happened for all this farm land to be rolled up by the conglomerates. Not implying that it was the wrong decision on the larger geo-political scale.
I would like to see the return of small farms if someone can make it viable, I would not trade the life I lived as a child for anything, but as I said above, I will never again scratch a living out of dirt, unless it is absolutely necessary for my and my families survival.
Automation of small acreages is the answer.
We are covered for grains, commodities and essentials. But we can maintain off grid homesteads and grow niche and high value crops on small acreages.
Look at all the vineyards we have now, marijuana grows, lavender fields and an embarrassment of riches when it comes to gourmet consumption.
Farming is magical. We convert sunlight and water through alchemy and plant genetics. There is absolutely nothing that compares.
We are covered for grains, commodities and essentials. But we can maintain off grid homesteads and grow niche and high value crops on small acreages.
Look at all the vineyards we have now, marijuana grows, lavender fields and an embarrassment of riches when it comes to gourmet consumption.
Farming is magical. We convert sunlight and water through alchemy and plant genetics. There is absolutely nothing that compares.
In all sincerity I wish you well and hope your endeavors succeed in this market. I cannot help but be cynical given my experiences with of being a farmer in the 70's and 80's. I do hope someone can solve the issue and bring a return to farming for the family farm. It was a good life to grow up in and is a worthwhile endeavor for someone to provide a solution to get back to.
Thanks. And I agree, it’s not easy. But we have to keep trying. Soil is my God. Water is Life.
While this is entirely true, real assets don't get any realer than productive farmland. The Fed's super money creation policy of 2020 is resulting in a new landrush (pun intended) of well-funded entities into real assets.
That's pretty much already true and there's a third-tier: boutique. The only "sustainable" operations out there are based on this model; c.f. Polyface Farms et al
> It also confirms what I have always said..most of our food and farmland is controlled by sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, pension funds, unions and institutional investment.
Does it though? Based on a post above yours he owns less than 0.1% of US farmland. That means ownership is not concentrated. It seems to be much like the logistics / trucking industry. There is no concentration of power.
Does it though? Based on a post above yours he owns less than 0.1% of US farmland. That means ownership is not concentrated. It seems to be much like the logistics / trucking industry. There is no concentration of power.
In Iowa there are laws against corporate farms (I think this means publicly traded, but I'm not sure exactly what). They have loopholes so that seed companies can grow seed (but nothing else), and other companies can test their farm equipment.
John Deere employee, but not speaking for my employer.
John Deere employee, but not speaking for my employer.
Sure, it's not really monopolistic, but there's definitely a trend towards concentration. Think about the number of unique farmland owners as a percentage of population, compared to 50, 100, or 200 years ago.
Looking at it the other way around, I'd much rather be a farmer in 2020 than 1920 or 1820. You'd earn much more.
Do you think the proposed American bill to purchase and distribute land to descendants of African-American farmers will change that?
No. Most of that land will then be sold to the highest bidder.
No kidding. Not making any comment on validity or ethics of reparations, but just putting myself in the shoes of someone who would be the beneficiary of this policy, would I like to uproot the life that I have led, and many generations of my ancestors have led as non-farm-owners, to go try to figure out how to farm? Or would I like a big fat check from Mr Gates?
That’s a really bad idea. Farming is a profession and an essential one. People need to be educated, trained and experienced. We can’t waste valuable farmland and distribute it.
However, if it does pass..then it could just be the dollar value of farmland that is redistributed or with the caveat that they form a co-op to professionally farm the acreage to be productive.
All farmland needs protection. Transitioning of farmland into commercial land or residential land should be fully discouraged.
Also..small holdings(less than 1000 acres) should be automated. Farming is for the rich. You need to lose a lot of money first before you can start making returns.
Encouraging those with no farm experience with farmland is pushing them into debt and penury.
However, if it does pass..then it could just be the dollar value of farmland that is redistributed or with the caveat that they form a co-op to professionally farm the acreage to be productive.
All farmland needs protection. Transitioning of farmland into commercial land or residential land should be fully discouraged.
Also..small holdings(less than 1000 acres) should be automated. Farming is for the rich. You need to lose a lot of money first before you can start making returns.
Encouraging those with no farm experience with farmland is pushing them into debt and penury.
That would just delay the same process that has allowed these larger landowners to own most of the land in the first place.
You are speaking of land ownership and redistribution of property.
I am talking about food production and farming.
They are two entirely different issues
I am talking about food production and farming.
They are two entirely different issues
There is a cutoff where small farmlands are not sustainable or economical. Small farms means that the overhead for the produce is too high, and they require extensive subsidies to stay afloat.
Not if we bring tech and automation to small farms.
Outside of the USA, small farm holdings feed the citizens. It is even more important for them to avail new tech and labour cost saving automation.
Outside of the USA, small farm holdings feed the citizens. It is even more important for them to avail new tech and labour cost saving automation.
That is not completely true. In EU more than 40% small farmers consumed more than half their produce.
In India heavily subsidizes farming as well, for good reason since a significant portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
In India heavily subsidizes farming as well, for good reason since a significant portion of the population is employed in the agricultural sector.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
What is ‘not completely true’?
Good. If you speak to anyone in the agriculture industry they will tell you the small and family farms tend to have the worst safety, environmental and animal cruelty records.
That is an awfully viscous claim to make.
I grew up around family farms. Many members of my family still produce crops and own livestock. So, to someone with first hand knowledge your comment rings false. The large feedlots, processing plants, etc. are the most inhumane (and dehumanizing), places I know of in the industry.
I would appreciate if you would at least _attempt_ to provide proof/justification before making such a blanket, mean-spirited statement.
I grew up around family farms. Many members of my family still produce crops and own livestock. So, to someone with first hand knowledge your comment rings false. The large feedlots, processing plants, etc. are the most inhumane (and dehumanizing), places I know of in the industry.
I would appreciate if you would at least _attempt_ to provide proof/justification before making such a blanket, mean-spirited statement.
Many small farms ..in fact almost all of them in every state..have to follow rules and regulations for certifications. Farming is VERY auditable and we have created systems/processes/checks/controls.
But it’s expensive. The failure of small farms is mostly seen in the balance sheet.
But it’s expensive. The failure of small farms is mostly seen in the balance sheet.
This is somewhat true but not absolute truth tho’. But if I don’t want to get into the weeds to nit pick on details, I would say that you are right.
Having said that, it is because of economics. Small farm environmental sustainability is not feasible due to $$. The solution for this small acreage automation(what I am working on) systems and protocols.
Small acreage automation is important because globally, food comes from small acreages and it is becoming increasingly difficult for many small and poorer nations to feed their people. Not all countries have rich people owning very large acreages in cultivation.
American farms also produce little food and more fodder/fiber/fuel. We import most of our nutritious food like produce.
For food security, there needs to be more small acreage automation and more small farmers. We educate everyone these days and they need to be employed. They are not going to manually pick weeds if they run a sustainable farm. The only reason California has $45+ billion in ag revenue is because of the poorly paid undocumented immigrant labour force. And massive entitlements that big farmers(most of them as corporates own between 20k-100k acres of land) earn mostly through our complicated water agreements that the tax payers bear most of the cost indirectly.
Having said that, it is because of economics. Small farm environmental sustainability is not feasible due to $$. The solution for this small acreage automation(what I am working on) systems and protocols.
Small acreage automation is important because globally, food comes from small acreages and it is becoming increasingly difficult for many small and poorer nations to feed their people. Not all countries have rich people owning very large acreages in cultivation.
American farms also produce little food and more fodder/fiber/fuel. We import most of our nutritious food like produce.
For food security, there needs to be more small acreage automation and more small farmers. We educate everyone these days and they need to be employed. They are not going to manually pick weeds if they run a sustainable farm. The only reason California has $45+ billion in ag revenue is because of the poorly paid undocumented immigrant labour force. And massive entitlements that big farmers(most of them as corporates own between 20k-100k acres of land) earn mostly through our complicated water agreements that the tax payers bear most of the cost indirectly.
> The solution for this small acreage automation(what I am working on) systems and protocols.
Could you elaborate on this? What exactly is it that you want to automate?
Could you elaborate on this? What exactly is it that you want to automate?
Automation to reduce operating costs.
I am unable to elaborate at this point, but I think this will give you an idea about the kind of costs and returns we face in our industry: https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/7a/c9/7...
Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated and helpful to me.
I am unable to elaborate at this point, but I think this will give you an idea about the kind of costs and returns we face in our industry: https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/7a/c9/7...
Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated and helpful to me.
[deleted]
The next time they tell you that, ask if you can visit and film their factory farms.
Wouldn't they have a vested interest in that narrative? I'd trust some transparent research by an objective third party, I suppose.
And corporate farms are known for severely depleting the topsoil, which is both a carbon sink and a natural source of self-replenishing fertilizer. And are also more likely to do monoculture farms which are less resource efficient and more susceptible to disease and adverse weather.
It isn't nearly so clear cut a situation.
It isn't nearly so clear cut a situation.
Fun fact: Australia has some crazy big properties that makes Bill look like a slum dweller.
This list of 73 properties are all significantly bigger than Bill's little patch of dirt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_stations_i...
eg. Anna Creek Station
23,677 km2 (9,142 sq mi; 5,851,000 acres)
This list of 73 properties are all significantly bigger than Bill's little patch of dirt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_stations_i...
eg. Anna Creek Station
23,677 km2 (9,142 sq mi; 5,851,000 acres)
240K acres is merely a spec. Especially in the Midwest region of the US.
There are ~340 million acres of farmland alone in the US
There are ~340 million acres of farmland alone in the US
If he built a city on it then it would be the 15th biggest city in the US by land area. That makes it sound like quite a lot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...)
> I did some quick math, and the 240k acres it says they own comes out to about 378 square miles, which if condensed down to a square would be 20 miles by 20 miles.
To put that in perspective though.. per Wikipedia, all of Manhattan is 22.7 square miles!
*mindblown*
To put that in perspective though.. per Wikipedia, all of Manhattan is 22.7 square miles!
*mindblown*
Indeed, the entire city of NY is only about 303 sq. miles (land area only), on which resides 8.5 million people.
Another stat I read said the median US plot size is 10861 sq. feet., so Gates owns very nearly 1 million times the square footage of the average property.
Another stat I read said the median US plot size is 10861 sq. feet., so Gates owns very nearly 1 million times the square footage of the average property.
By way of contrast, the largest single ranch in the US is the WT Waggoner Estate Ranch, with 535,000 acres, contiguous. It's owned by a couple, the wife of whom is a Walton.
I was expecting a much larger number. At $10k/acre for good arable land, that's only 2.4e5 * 1e4 = $2.4B, which is still a fair amount of money.
As a basis for comparison, the LDS church owns over 670,000 acres of land in Florida alone.
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/17957/the-mormon-church...
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/17957/the-mormon-church...
Sounds about the size of Greater London.
Approximately area of Manhattan
Nah, whole area of NYC would be in the right ballpark, but is still less.
That's ~8 San Franciscos!
it's ~971 square km, which would mean a 30km by 30km square of land. It's very large, but yeah indeed not that massive either at the scale of the country.
You can make a lot more money by owning a lot of small patches of land than by owning one large piece of land.
Unless you are actually using the land for farming, of course.
Unless you are actually using the land for farming, of course.
Well, in Texas I've seen some ranches that are several miles in one dimension (one was called "The eight mile ranch").
So there's that.
So there's that.
[deleted]
378sqmi is roughly 0.01% of the US (3,796,742sqmi) which still seems like a pretty large amount of land.
Maybe that’s a lot for farm land. Considering you can fit over 450 football fields in a sq mile.
There are 900M acres in US worth $2.5T... It's a huuuge market.
Thats a little over a 1/4th of the size of Rhode Island.
That's about 0.00003% of all U.S. farmland.
EDIT: I failed basic arithmetic, apparently. It's 0.03%
EDIT: I failed basic arithmetic, apparently. It's 0.03%
I think it's about 0.03% of all US farmland, 3 orders of magnitude more.
267K acres out of 897M acres.
267K acres out of 897M acres.
No, there are only 330M acres of US farmland according to the USDA:
source in blog post sorry
https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-ag...
source in blog post sorry
https://thinkingagriculture.io/incentivizing-regenerative-ag...
Page 4 in this USDA Ag Stats report says it's 897M acres: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
"Total land in farms, at 897,400,000 acres, decreased 2,100,000 acres from 2018."
I've seen the 330M acres figure elsewhere as the "prime" farmland area rather than total farmland and the blog post you cite has figures that include fallow, idle, and pasture farmland categories above the crop usage figure of 330M acres.
In any case, cropland is 2.5 orders of magnitude higher than GP's calculation rather than a full 3.
"Total land in farms, at 897,400,000 acres, decreased 2,100,000 acres from 2018."
I've seen the 330M acres figure elsewhere as the "prime" farmland area rather than total farmland and the blog post you cite has figures that include fallow, idle, and pasture farmland categories above the crop usage figure of 330M acres.
In any case, cropland is 2.5 orders of magnitude higher than GP's calculation rather than a full 3.
Thanks!
Meanwhile the average person owns no land, is behind on their rent, and will probably (if ever) get a mortgage they can never feasibly pay off.
Yes, it’s a lot of land and it’s not remotely justifiable. Inequality isn’t something to just handwave away.
Yes, it’s a lot of land and it’s not remotely justifiable. Inequality isn’t something to just handwave away.
Bill Gates is the wealthiest person in the world (or arguably Arnault).
You might say, no, Musk and Bezos are worth 50% (or ~60 billion) more. On paper yes, but that's not a great metric. When I think of wealth, I think of what you can reasonably acquire.
If you multiply Musk's shares in Tesla times the current share price, sure you get 180 billion. But if he tried to sell a large number those shares, they'd plummet in value as he was selling them. Without Musk, I'd be surprised if Tesla is worth 20% of its current valuation. To a lesser extent, this is true of Bezos too, although Amazon without him is still a very valuable company.
On the other hand, Bill Gates owns 1.6% of Microsoft, which I believe is his biggest holding, followed by Berkshire Hathaway stock. I'd bet he can sell both of those holdings completely without a huge hit to either stock price (but definitely some hit). Same with his farmland and other alternative assets. On top of that, having already sold his Microsoft shares, he's not subject to as much capital gains tax as Bezos or Musk, each of whom pretty much owe 20% of their total net worth the second they want to sell.
So on paper, Musk and Bezos are wealthier, but if all of them decided to Scrooge McDuck it and put all their money into a gold filled vault tomorrow, Bill Gates' vault would be the fullest.
EDIT: typo above... Originally said that Musk owns 180 bn in Amazon stock :)
You might say, no, Musk and Bezos are worth 50% (or ~60 billion) more. On paper yes, but that's not a great metric. When I think of wealth, I think of what you can reasonably acquire.
If you multiply Musk's shares in Tesla times the current share price, sure you get 180 billion. But if he tried to sell a large number those shares, they'd plummet in value as he was selling them. Without Musk, I'd be surprised if Tesla is worth 20% of its current valuation. To a lesser extent, this is true of Bezos too, although Amazon without him is still a very valuable company.
On the other hand, Bill Gates owns 1.6% of Microsoft, which I believe is his biggest holding, followed by Berkshire Hathaway stock. I'd bet he can sell both of those holdings completely without a huge hit to either stock price (but definitely some hit). Same with his farmland and other alternative assets. On top of that, having already sold his Microsoft shares, he's not subject to as much capital gains tax as Bezos or Musk, each of whom pretty much owe 20% of their total net worth the second they want to sell.
So on paper, Musk and Bezos are wealthier, but if all of them decided to Scrooge McDuck it and put all their money into a gold filled vault tomorrow, Bill Gates' vault would be the fullest.
EDIT: typo above... Originally said that Musk owns 180 bn in Amazon stock :)
There's another issue, which constantly bothered me back when "Jeff Bezos is richer than Bill Gates" was a big news item.
These comparisons never take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation into account. Bill Gates put about half his money into a financial structure with favorable tax treatment. But it's still his money that he controls. There's no reason to ignore it if you're trying to assess how wealthy he is.
These comparisons never take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation into account. Bill Gates put about half his money into a financial structure with favorable tax treatment. But it's still his money that he controls. There's no reason to ignore it if you're trying to assess how wealthy he is.
It's kind of his money that he controls. He can do a lot with it, but he can't buy a yacht with it... You don't get the favorable tax treatment without a ton of restrictions on how you can spend the money.
He can't buy a yacht with his Foundation money, but he already has a yacht.
Think of it this way: Gates has a certain list of things he wants to spend money on. The government likes some of those things and forgoes taxes on them.
That doesn't change the fact that Gates is spending his money on exactly what he wants to. The restrictions are essentially irrelevant to him.
Think of it this way: Gates has a certain list of things he wants to spend money on. The government likes some of those things and forgoes taxes on them.
That doesn't change the fact that Gates is spending his money on exactly what he wants to. The restrictions are essentially irrelevant to him.
He might be able to buy or build a yacht with it actually.
How? By outfitting it with facilities so that he can claim it has medical applications?
Yea that’s pretty much the only way. Mercy Ships is a major charity that does similar. And to the commenter who mentioned the trump foundation, it was charged with fraud, fined $2M, and dissolved. So probably not a great example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Ships
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Ships
My understanding is that there are actually very few restrictions on what kind of expenses charitable foundations can use their funds toward. The public’s attention was drawn to this because of media reporting on some of the more ludicrous outlays of the Trump Foundation.
>It's kind of his money that he controls. He can do a lot with it, but he can't buy a yacht with it... You don't get the favorable tax treatment without a ton of restrictions on how you can spend the money.
Bill Gates would never need to buy a yacht with his foundation money because he would buy a yacht before he made it foundation money.
It's like saying I can't buy a new TV with my retirement funds, but, I can certainly buy a new TV and contribute less to my retirement funds -- the end result is the exact same dollars went to the exact same end, I just organized them differently.
A version of this is that every kid who got scholarship money or loans knows how to bucket expenses to use your "limited use" dollars on qualifying expenses that would otherwise be paid by general funds, freeing up general funds for things. The net result is that the loans paid for nonqualified expenses, but they were organized appropriately.
Bill Gates would never need to buy a yacht with his foundation money because he would buy a yacht before he made it foundation money.
It's like saying I can't buy a new TV with my retirement funds, but, I can certainly buy a new TV and contribute less to my retirement funds -- the end result is the exact same dollars went to the exact same end, I just organized them differently.
A version of this is that every kid who got scholarship money or loans knows how to bucket expenses to use your "limited use" dollars on qualifying expenses that would otherwise be paid by general funds, freeing up general funds for things. The net result is that the loans paid for nonqualified expenses, but they were organized appropriately.
Yep but he chooses for it to be restrict this way
To be a bit facetious, that's like saying that I still possess all of the money I spent on groceries because I chose to spend it that way... at some point it's not my money anymore. I agree that Bill Gates still exerts some control over the money, but if he can't actually do anything he wants with it, then it's not wealth the same way cash, or even stock is.
At a certain point it starts to become silly to talk about wealth as the ability to buy things, rather than the ability to organize a large portion of the world's economic systems. That's specifically what his foundation can do as long as it's within a fairly broad set of parameters.
> To be a bit facetious, that's like saying that I still possess all of the money I spent on groceries because I chose to spend it that way... at some point it's not my money anymore.
I mean, you could say that groceries are part of your net worth, and immediately after purchase are roughly similar in value to the money you traded for them. Obviously people don't tend to bother counting their groceries as part of their net worth, mostly because they go bad or are consumed quickly and comprise a tiny percentage of most people's net worth.
But, in general, yes, your net worth is the value of everything you own (minus your debt). It's not at all crazy to say that, when you buy something very valuable or transfer money to a foundation which you control, your net worth is not changing much.
I mean, you could say that groceries are part of your net worth, and immediately after purchase are roughly similar in value to the money you traded for them. Obviously people don't tend to bother counting their groceries as part of their net worth, mostly because they go bad or are consumed quickly and comprise a tiny percentage of most people's net worth.
But, in general, yes, your net worth is the value of everything you own (minus your debt). It's not at all crazy to say that, when you buy something very valuable or transfer money to a foundation which you control, your net worth is not changing much.
The point was that this is how he chooses to spend his money. For whatever reason I guess it makes him feel good. Which his cool but he has vastly more autonomy over his money than regular mortals - as do many other HNW individuals, they’re not all as kind hearted as Bill though.
> that's like saying that I still possess all of the money I spent on groceries because I chose to spend it that way... at some point it's not my money anymore.
Yes, but that point comes when you eat the groceries, not when you buy them.
Yes, but that point comes when you eat the groceries, not when you buy them.
No need to buy anything with it when he still has enough outside of that money. It still gets used to further his initiatives, although no longer personal like one would do with money in their direct control.
What I find amazing is how the richest person in the world also happens to be a really good person. Bill Gates generally just seems humble, kind, and... normal. Imagine if Bill Gates were instead a corrupt megalomaniac - it wouldn't be too hard to slip into amoral hedonism when you have that much money.
It's quite a redemption story. 20 years ago Bill Gates was reviled as one of the most evil people in technology. He was a bully and a thief, and crushed potential competitors for fun.
And then his mom told him he needs to start giving it away. And he said, "how can I make money if I'm giving it away". And she told him "you can give away what you already made while you make more to give away".
And then he started the foundation.
And then his mom told him he needs to start giving it away. And he said, "how can I make money if I'm giving it away". And she told him "you can give away what you already made while you make more to give away".
And then he started the foundation.
I thought it was Warren Buffet that convinced him to go the philanthropy route.
He said it was mom that told him "has to give it away" but Buffet guided him on how to do it.
[deleted]
To be clear, he spent about as much as humanly possible on himself first. He just didn't want to reserve the rest for his descendants.
I play board games with some friends. While we're generally nice guys and girls, in some of the games we go full twirling moustache evil, every trick allowed as long as its in the rules. That's an in-game persona for an hour, after which we revert back to our nice selves. Which is fine, BTW, we're consenting adults and we know its a game.
I always thought of Bill as doing the same thing in Microsoft. Nice guy generally, but business is business, no hard feelings while he steamrolls your small company to death. Then, after having a fun work day doing what he should be doing, he reverts to his nice self.
He was probably shocked to learn the world knew only his evil side.
I always thought of Bill as doing the same thing in Microsoft. Nice guy generally, but business is business, no hard feelings while he steamrolls your small company to death. Then, after having a fun work day doing what he should be doing, he reverts to his nice self.
He was probably shocked to learn the world knew only his evil side.
You might be right, but I do feel that it is a difference between a board game and real world.
The decisions you make for the company affects the real world (even thought it is in the role of a artificial entity, like a company) and have real consequences on people and the state of the world.
The same in not true for the decisions you make in a board game or computer game.
Of course some might say board games affect the real world but the difference in scale is so large it is negligible.
The decisions you make for the company affects the real world (even thought it is in the role of a artificial entity, like a company) and have real consequences on people and the state of the world.
The same in not true for the decisions you make in a board game or computer game.
Of course some might say board games affect the real world but the difference in scale is so large it is negligible.
that's clearly true, of course. I don't want to defend Bill or Microsoft (not that he needs me to). I simply see it as a way to explain his behaviour.
I don't expect you to change your mind because confirmation bias is a powerful force. I did see this video recently and found it interesting. Have you seen it? "Bill Gates - Microsoft Antitrust Deposition - Highlights" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRelVFm7iJE
Wow, he does seem like a massive jerk in that video. That said, I try not to judge people on how they acted in the past, but how they currently act. Compare that more recent interview and videos (like Mark Rober's) and he seems to have mellowed out a lot. Maybe it's all for the cameras and he's privately still a massive jerk, I don't know, but my impression of him lately based on stuff I've seen online has generally left a good impression.
He is not speaking personally in that video but after hours of coaching by lawyers. He sounds rude the same way a suspect refuses to speak without a lawyer is rude.
To me it is clear that Gates was prepared by a host of lawyers, which makes sense.
But the interrogator doesn't grasp the subject entirely as well, I too would want clarification to the question if a content provider uses IE. You could ask a helpful question, e.g. Do you mean if they develop sites specifically for IE?
But That is not how you go about a deposition, you're not there to help people build a case against you.
But the interrogator doesn't grasp the subject entirely as well, I too would want clarification to the question if a content provider uses IE. You could ask a helpful question, e.g. Do you mean if they develop sites specifically for IE?
But That is not how you go about a deposition, you're not there to help people build a case against you.
It’s important to understand that gates and his people have put in a _lot_ of work to reform his image in the last 20 years.
We think gates is humble, kind, normal because that’s the image he wants to portray.
I agree his philanthropy goes a little further than typical billionaire reputation laundering, but he still has a limit. For example, he said he’d vote for trump if the dem candidate supported a wealth tax.
We think gates is humble, kind, normal because that’s the image he wants to portray.
I agree his philanthropy goes a little further than typical billionaire reputation laundering, but he still has a limit. For example, he said he’d vote for trump if the dem candidate supported a wealth tax.
> We think gates is humble, kind, normal because that’s the image he wants to portray.
Maybe... however, the narrative that people never change and that any apparent changes are but a thin veneer on an unchanging person rubs me the wrong way.
I like to think I can change - that I can iron out my personality flaws and become a better person (more patient, kind, open-minded, charitable, etc.) over the decades. So why shouldn't I extend that benefit of the doubt to other people too? I assume a lot of people have an innate desire to change and improve as well since lots of people are religious, and the core message of a lot of religions is just that - that you can repent of your past mistakes, change, and become better.
Maybe... however, the narrative that people never change and that any apparent changes are but a thin veneer on an unchanging person rubs me the wrong way.
I like to think I can change - that I can iron out my personality flaws and become a better person (more patient, kind, open-minded, charitable, etc.) over the decades. So why shouldn't I extend that benefit of the doubt to other people too? I assume a lot of people have an innate desire to change and improve as well since lots of people are religious, and the core message of a lot of religions is just that - that you can repent of your past mistakes, change, and become better.
Citation needed.
He's said approximately the opposite publicly.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-im-happy-to-pay...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-im-happy-to-pay...
It's crazy what paying for better branding can do.
This is the same guy that tried to take all of Paul Allen's stock while he had Cancer. He's the same, he's just worked on his image.
I think if you scroll back to discussion on slashdot in the 90s, you'd see public opinion in the tech community was very different back then. That said, I agree with your take on Gates.
Gates has a much bigger pr organization behind him than Mellon or Carnegie ever did in a previous era of monopolists and oligarchs.
Since Gates funds a lot of the western media, (UK Guardian, BBC etc) you never hear any criticism of the WHO (which Gates also effectively owns) or GAVI, which is a Gates Vehicle. This is not a healthy situation at all.
Since Gates funds a lot of the western media, (UK Guardian, BBC etc) you never hear any criticism of the WHO (which Gates also effectively owns) or GAVI, which is a Gates Vehicle. This is not a healthy situation at all.
Gates funds the BBC? What?
I wasn't aware of this, but apparently, yes, he does.[1][2] I think it's important to note that this doesn't have to be because he expects something in return, he could just think funding good news organizations is a good thing to do. It's also important to keep in mind that even if he doesn't expect favorable reporting doesn't mean he doesn't get it anyways as a byproduct.
1: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-awa...
2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
1: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/gates-foundation-awa...
2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
Journalism’s Gates keepers
Columbia Journalism Review https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu... A useful article
Columbia Journalism Review https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-fu... A useful article
The problem I have with articles like that is they are long on innuendo and implication and short on data. We get a lot of "not much bad is said about them" without much comparison to sources that aren't funded by them that might be more neutral.
In the end it's very hard to tell if they are talking about pit bulls or puppies. Having nothing bad to say about a dog breed known for high profile attacks, dog fighting, and other negatively associated events would be extremely suspect. Having nothing bad to say about puppies in general is expected of such a benign subject. I doubt the Gates foundation is either a pit bull or a puppy, but I can't responsibly make an assumption even about what side of the spectrum they are from an article about how suspicious the absence of criticism is for an organization which is supposedly trying to do good as a charity.
In the end it's very hard to tell if they are talking about pit bulls or puppies. Having nothing bad to say about a dog breed known for high profile attacks, dog fighting, and other negatively associated events would be extremely suspect. Having nothing bad to say about puppies in general is expected of such a benign subject. I doubt the Gates foundation is either a pit bull or a puppy, but I can't responsibly make an assumption even about what side of the spectrum they are from an article about how suspicious the absence of criticism is for an organization which is supposedly trying to do good as a charity.
I think you find this amazing, in large part, because in 2021 the American culture (and to an extent, the global culture) has equated wealth with corruption. If somebody has wealth, then they must have done something distasteful to get it. The wealthier they are, the more people they must have exploited to gain their wealth. So the logic goes.
This is wrong-headed but pervasive thinking. In reality, rich people are just people. Politicians are just people. Celebrities are just people. All people are corrupt to some degree, and some people are corrupt to a large degree.
It's easy for you to imagine a very wealthy person slipping into amoral hedonism, but I contend that their wealth has little to do with it. I once visited a rural Siberian village where a significant contingent of the older men wandered around town drunk. It was so commonplace that 10-year-olds in the community could tell you which of the men were angry drunks, and which ones could be led by the hand back to their homes. Those men lived on food rations from the government, and the first thing they would do when they got their ration of bread was to take it to the local convenience store and trade the bread for vodka. There are probably lots of reasons why someone would wallow in drunkenness for months at a time, but one reason is that they're just following whatever desires they have at any moment in time. Amoral hedonism isn't strictly a rich man's game.
This is wrong-headed but pervasive thinking. In reality, rich people are just people. Politicians are just people. Celebrities are just people. All people are corrupt to some degree, and some people are corrupt to a large degree.
It's easy for you to imagine a very wealthy person slipping into amoral hedonism, but I contend that their wealth has little to do with it. I once visited a rural Siberian village where a significant contingent of the older men wandered around town drunk. It was so commonplace that 10-year-olds in the community could tell you which of the men were angry drunks, and which ones could be led by the hand back to their homes. Those men lived on food rations from the government, and the first thing they would do when they got their ration of bread was to take it to the local convenience store and trade the bread for vodka. There are probably lots of reasons why someone would wallow in drunkenness for months at a time, but one reason is that they're just following whatever desires they have at any moment in time. Amoral hedonism isn't strictly a rich man's game.
At the same time, nobody has accumulated a billion dollars in personal wealth with a totally clean conscience. Millionaires, sure, thats an order of magnitude less wealth though. Billionaires are such a distortion of economic allotment that just to be one necessitates having such a profound influence on so much of their economic sphere that to have gotten into that position required someone else being taken advantage of at some point, and in practice its a lot of someones and a lot of harm caused. Its no different than diverting a river into a reservoir - you can make a small lake with minimal ecological damage, but when you divert into a sea or an ocean the entire environment shifts around it for some good and some ill with there always being some consequences for it happening.
For a lot of people (myself included) it is not mainly about the ethics of individual billionaires, its about the ethics of the existence of billionaires to begin with.
For a lot of people (myself included) it is not mainly about the ethics of individual billionaires, its about the ethics of the existence of billionaires to begin with.
The spread of this narrative is fascinating, given how easy it is to find counterexamples. I attribute it to a lack of education around business.
One of my good friends is a highly-paid engineer at a tech company, and he told me, "Businesses want to keep people poor, so they have cheap labor." Which is about as sensible as saying consumers want businesses to be poor, so we get cheaper products. This is actually a pervasive myth believed by many intelligent people.
Of course businesses want to pay as little as they can for labor, the same way literally anyone paying for anything wants to pay as little as possible. But other concerns obviously come into play as well, e.g. the quality of the people you hire, the affluence of the customers you can sell to, your top-level revenue numbers, etc. This should have been obvious to my friend, who works at a tech company that's happy to pay him and others $200k+.
The reality is that businesses actually prefer wealthy societies with wealthy customers who can buy more things. It's a chronic problem that poor communities are under-served by businesses, because poverty makes it harder to profit.
And yet the myth that businesses want people to be poor persists.
As does the myth that you can only make large sums of money through cheating, scamming, lying, stealing, etc.
One of my good friends is a highly-paid engineer at a tech company, and he told me, "Businesses want to keep people poor, so they have cheap labor." Which is about as sensible as saying consumers want businesses to be poor, so we get cheaper products. This is actually a pervasive myth believed by many intelligent people.
Of course businesses want to pay as little as they can for labor, the same way literally anyone paying for anything wants to pay as little as possible. But other concerns obviously come into play as well, e.g. the quality of the people you hire, the affluence of the customers you can sell to, your top-level revenue numbers, etc. This should have been obvious to my friend, who works at a tech company that's happy to pay him and others $200k+.
The reality is that businesses actually prefer wealthy societies with wealthy customers who can buy more things. It's a chronic problem that poor communities are under-served by businesses, because poverty makes it harder to profit.
And yet the myth that businesses want people to be poor persists.
As does the myth that you can only make large sums of money through cheating, scamming, lying, stealing, etc.
I'll agree, but I really do think being a successful politician is probably heavily correlated to being prone to corruption/other immoral acts. The type of people who are attracted to and capable of succeeding at political are necessarily immoral. Those with morals generally lose elections and aren't able to raise money.
I guess you weren't around in the 90s.
It's the result of having a good public relations firm.
For purchases like the one in the article, you can absolutely purchase with stock in lieu of cash. This happens all the time, and doesn't have nearly the impact on the share price that selling for cash on the exchange does.
How much cash you could get in a vault isn't really a useful measure of wealth since cash isn't the only object of value that you can exchange for goods and services (which you even pointed out in your comment by mentioning gold)
How much cash you could get in a vault isn't really a useful measure of wealth since cash isn't the only object of value that you can exchange for goods and services (which you even pointed out in your comment by mentioning gold)
Cash, or gold, artwork, whatever... Sure you can purchase with stock. But you can't easily purchase with $180 billion in stock without affecting the stock price.
If Musk started to sell off a significant chunk of stock he'd have to disclose this, and the stock price would take a hit whether it was on an exchange or for farmland.
You still have to sell some to cover the real estate transfer taxes since the government doesn't accept stock. With a 1% transfer tax you're still looking at $1.7M. Not too bad though.
Even if you sell it as a divestiture plan, that constant pressure has consequences on the stock price. I think in some cases you can list stock holdings as collateral on a loan, in which case you can derive a similar cash benefit from the stocks as you would get from selling it, meanwhile not incurring the social and political consequences of selling your holding.
Bill, as I recall, had a much larger percentage of MSFT when he retired. Microsoft used to dilute their shares via employee stock grants, so I'm not sure how much of that is attrition and how much is divestiture on his part. One source on the internet says he was estimated to owns 4.3% as recently as two years ago. And I see another article from March of last year talking about him leaving the board of directors, and owning 1.36%.
I wonder if anyone has analyzed how much of the MSFT stock stagnation that occurred after his retirement could be attributed to his divestiture plan, rather than Ballmer's fault.
Bill, as I recall, had a much larger percentage of MSFT when he retired. Microsoft used to dilute their shares via employee stock grants, so I'm not sure how much of that is attrition and how much is divestiture on his part. One source on the internet says he was estimated to owns 4.3% as recently as two years ago. And I see another article from March of last year talking about him leaving the board of directors, and owning 1.36%.
I wonder if anyone has analyzed how much of the MSFT stock stagnation that occurred after his retirement could be attributed to his divestiture plan, rather than Ballmer's fault.
Was just thinking about this the other day. Not only does the incoming CEO have big leadership shoes to fill, the incoming CEO has to deal with the previous founder CEO unloading shares every quarter which essentially appears to the general market as a vote of no confidence. In Ballmer's case he also had to contend with the dotcom bubble bursting.
I think unless the founder is liquidating en-masse it's usually a non-event. Even in the click-batey articles I read about those they always include something about how it's normal and been planned for the last year when a CEO sells their stock
It's not a non-event, it's just invisible. A divestiture plan is erosion instead of a mud slide.
The swing in the stock price every day is fueled by supply and demand. The stock goes up 20c because the only person selling it wants a little more than the last sale price. It goes down 20c when someone wants to sell at the last price but the only people willing to pay that much already bought their shares. And that's not even including what happens to stop and limit orders that trigger automatically when the stock swings just a little bit farther than people anticipated. Just a small shift changes the slope of the price trend, which may cause people to shift demand away from that stock.
These days, when I'm mostly hands-off with my portfolio, more of my orders expire than actually trigger. Sometimes only just missing having done so.
It's part of the magic thinking about the stock market. We don't often discuss it in this sort of thread, but we definitely do when people are talking about HFT and AI for stock purchases and sales. Your orders don't happen in a vacuum, and they can affect future orders.
The swing in the stock price every day is fueled by supply and demand. The stock goes up 20c because the only person selling it wants a little more than the last sale price. It goes down 20c when someone wants to sell at the last price but the only people willing to pay that much already bought their shares. And that's not even including what happens to stop and limit orders that trigger automatically when the stock swings just a little bit farther than people anticipated. Just a small shift changes the slope of the price trend, which may cause people to shift demand away from that stock.
These days, when I'm mostly hands-off with my portfolio, more of my orders expire than actually trigger. Sometimes only just missing having done so.
It's part of the magic thinking about the stock market. We don't often discuss it in this sort of thread, but we definitely do when people are talking about HFT and AI for stock purchases and sales. Your orders don't happen in a vacuum, and they can affect future orders.
Yes - that's probably the challenging part for the incoming CEO - its an invisible headwind for them. If you think about over a two decades - Gates/Paul Allen going from 50% ownership in 2000 when they both retired to 20% ownership in 2010 to 0% around when Nadella took over - it must have some impact.
It was reported in the 80's that Gates had regular scheduled (to avoid insider trading allegations and spooking investors) sales of MSFT stock.
> You might say, no, Musk and Bezos are worth 50% (or ~60 billion) more. On paper yes, but that's not a great metric. When I think of wealth, I think of what you can reasonably acquire.
Exactly. Stock wealth isn't real money because it isn't actionable. You can't sell all of it without crashing. All personal wealth should be measured by how much liquid cash you could get for it in a short term sale.
That's also the amount you could theoretically donate towards, for example, averting a short-term humanity disaster. If you needed $100 billion in hard cash to pay for a bunch of things to avert an asteroid or nasty virus, Elon Musk wouldn't be able to provide that sum even if he wanted to.
Exactly. Stock wealth isn't real money because it isn't actionable. You can't sell all of it without crashing. All personal wealth should be measured by how much liquid cash you could get for it in a short term sale.
That's also the amount you could theoretically donate towards, for example, averting a short-term humanity disaster. If you needed $100 billion in hard cash to pay for a bunch of things to avert an asteroid or nasty virus, Elon Musk wouldn't be able to provide that sum even if he wanted to.
I'd argue if you own a significant fraction of a large company, you have a significant effect on it's decisions. Controlling a giant company and all it's connections, levers, abilities, etc is way more valuable than just a hundred billion in hard cash
Musk or Bezos can use their wealth as collateral against other a huge line of credit. At their level of resources, you are more likely to take on a lot of debt to delay realizing gains, they do not need to sell their shares to have other things
Here's a fun video which discusses the phenomenon you're describing. Its a bit click-baity but does provide an overall summary pretty nicely.
Economics Explained - The Ranks of Global Billionaires: Not All Billionaires Are Made Equal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeRN7LE1LQ
It even covers the oligarchy scenario :)
Economics Explained - The Ranks of Global Billionaires: Not All Billionaires Are Made Equal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeRN7LE1LQ
It even covers the oligarchy scenario :)
Another way to look at wealth is as total spending power between now and eternity. Taken that way, it doesn't matter as much if your wealth is tied up in unsaleable stock-- stock afterall represents your claim on the discounted future earnings of a company, so those earnings will be available given enough time.
Estimating the true future earnings of businesses, and the amount available to current shareholders of course, isn't easy. But taking the stock market's approximation of that intrinsic value is quick and dirty way to get it. Of course, the caveat is that stocks aren't always efficiently priced.
Estimating the true future earnings of businesses, and the amount available to current shareholders of course, isn't easy. But taking the stock market's approximation of that intrinsic value is quick and dirty way to get it. Of course, the caveat is that stocks aren't always efficiently priced.
They all have infinite money for all intent and purposes.
What always annoys me with most people out there is that they want to take money from the super wealthy. As if Musk and Bezos and Gates are sitting on stockpiles of Dollars. Their income isn't billions of Dollars a year, that's simply–mostly–the increase in value of their assets.
In the olden days they taxed millionaires crazy percentages of income tax. But that was before the digital era. Right now, money is digital and there isn't a gold standard. If you say: "Bezos, we tax you 80% of your income!" you'd see him simply not making any money at all and even collecting food stamps if he wanted to.
So the next step would be taxing someone's net worth, which would force Bezos to sell his stocks.
And guess who will be buying those stocks.
Other money printing governments in the form of their wealthy but sponsored businessmen, mostly from China. Then in a few years Amazon is Chinese-owned.
But yeah, Bill and Belinda Gates are at least doing it right. Their foundation is doing so much good for the world and their legacy will be immense for centuries to come.
Same for Musk, who single-handedly kickstarted (I'm not saying he did it all himself, I know he didn't) the world to accept electric cars and made rocket boosters that could land again.
Bezos, on the other hand? Honestly, more power to him doing what he does. He's playing the game by its own rules. And he's winning. But damn, he isn't doing much good with all those resources, does he? Even Amazon Prime isn't that good...
In the olden days they taxed millionaires crazy percentages of income tax. But that was before the digital era. Right now, money is digital and there isn't a gold standard. If you say: "Bezos, we tax you 80% of your income!" you'd see him simply not making any money at all and even collecting food stamps if he wanted to.
So the next step would be taxing someone's net worth, which would force Bezos to sell his stocks.
And guess who will be buying those stocks.
Other money printing governments in the form of their wealthy but sponsored businessmen, mostly from China. Then in a few years Amazon is Chinese-owned.
But yeah, Bill and Belinda Gates are at least doing it right. Their foundation is doing so much good for the world and their legacy will be immense for centuries to come.
Same for Musk, who single-handedly kickstarted (I'm not saying he did it all himself, I know he didn't) the world to accept electric cars and made rocket boosters that could land again.
Bezos, on the other hand? Honestly, more power to him doing what he does. He's playing the game by its own rules. And he's winning. But damn, he isn't doing much good with all those resources, does he? Even Amazon Prime isn't that good...
If we tax the rich more we'll be owned by China? That feels a bit like an insincere argument. Anyone wanting to buy large sums of Amazon stock could do so right now. Hoarding large sums of money isn't really beneficial to society and the huge sums are far past the point of justifying innovation and job creation incentives.
I completely agree with your overall point, although there are definitely a lot of intracicies here. Overall liquidity is definitely important though.
> Musk's shares in Amazon times the current share price
This is clearly a typo/copy-paste error since you got Musk/Tesla right in the next sentence.
> Musk's shares in Amazon times the current share price
This is clearly a typo/copy-paste error since you got Musk/Tesla right in the next sentence.
Is Bill Gates, or Musk, or Bezos (pre-divorce) the wealthiest person in the world? What I noticed is that these wealthiest lists routinely exclude royalty from these lists.
> Musk's shares in Amazon
I think you meant something else here?
I think you meant something else here?
Hmmmmm, I'm pretty sure by that measure Vladimir Putin is the wealthiest person in the world. On top of his own wealth, most of which is unreported, he can use state power to acquire whatever property in Russia he wants.
Only un-leveraged wealth should be measured. Meaning Musk and Bezos probably don't even make the top 10.
Putin is the richest person in the world. While we cannot verify it [1], it is estimated to be around $200 billion.
[1] https://qz.com/1594989/vladimir-putins-financial-disclosure-...
[1] https://qz.com/1594989/vladimir-putins-financial-disclosure-...
> if he tried to sell a large number those shares, they'd plummet in value as he was selling them
I think this is a good starting point to understanding the "real" value of Bezos' and Musk's fortunes, but I'm not sure it would play out like you say. As you pointed out, the valuations of both of their companies are held up by widely held beliefs about the men. A lot of Tesla's value comes from Elon Musk, super-genius-capitalist, being at the helm.
So, if the stock value comes from trusting the humans, it seems possible that Musk or Bezos could sell a large chunk of stock with the right explanation. Like, if Jeff Bezos said he was selling $30bn of stock to contribute to charity right now so he could get critics off his back and concentrate on Amazon...would the price go down? I don't see it.
I think this is a good starting point to understanding the "real" value of Bezos' and Musk's fortunes, but I'm not sure it would play out like you say. As you pointed out, the valuations of both of their companies are held up by widely held beliefs about the men. A lot of Tesla's value comes from Elon Musk, super-genius-capitalist, being at the helm.
So, if the stock value comes from trusting the humans, it seems possible that Musk or Bezos could sell a large chunk of stock with the right explanation. Like, if Jeff Bezos said he was selling $30bn of stock to contribute to charity right now so he could get critics off his back and concentrate on Amazon...would the price go down? I don't see it.
There’s two parts of how the sale would effect the price. One effect is trust in the business due to it’s shareholders, which could definitely be dealt with yes. The other effect though would be a massive amount of shares entering the market place, which would have purely mechanical outcomes.
30 billion dollars of amazon stock would be about 10 million amazon stock. About 4 amazon stock is traded daily, so that would be 2.5 days of total average amazon stock entering the market over some period of time. This means higher competition between people selling the stock to find people willing to buy it, which would lower the price. The quicker the stock was sold off, the more dramatic this effect would be. 10 million stock also represents about 1/50th of all amazon stock in existence. Another 4/50th’s of that stock also belongs to Bezos. Increasing the amount of stock available to the general populous by a not insignificant amount would also lower the price of the stock, although probably not very dramatically.
In the end, those effects probably wouldn’t be too major. I’m actually surprised that so much of amazon’s stock gets traded every day, I wasn’t expecting 4 million stock to be traded daily. Still, it would have an effect that means Bezos couldn’t liquify his position in just a day or two even with a good explanation.
30 billion dollars of amazon stock would be about 10 million amazon stock. About 4 amazon stock is traded daily, so that would be 2.5 days of total average amazon stock entering the market over some period of time. This means higher competition between people selling the stock to find people willing to buy it, which would lower the price. The quicker the stock was sold off, the more dramatic this effect would be. 10 million stock also represents about 1/50th of all amazon stock in existence. Another 4/50th’s of that stock also belongs to Bezos. Increasing the amount of stock available to the general populous by a not insignificant amount would also lower the price of the stock, although probably not very dramatically.
In the end, those effects probably wouldn’t be too major. I’m actually surprised that so much of amazon’s stock gets traded every day, I wasn’t expecting 4 million stock to be traded daily. Still, it would have an effect that means Bezos couldn’t liquify his position in just a day or two even with a good explanation.
Thank you for the notes about stock availability and the impacts of that! I hadn't thought about how the volume of available shared affects the price. Though it feels like market makers would feel this the most? I guess I'm not sure how much of a stocks' price is driven by limited availability.
>Bezos couldn’t liquify his position in just a day or two even with a good explanation
That absolutely makes sense. I wasn't imagining a quick liquidation necessaraly - selling $30bn worth of stock over 5 or 10 years would be plenty of fuel in the fire of charitable giving.
For reference, MacKenzie Scott just gave away $4bn over one year that, I think, came from Amazon stock and it doesn't seem to have hurt the price?
>Bezos couldn’t liquify his position in just a day or two even with a good explanation
That absolutely makes sense. I wasn't imagining a quick liquidation necessaraly - selling $30bn worth of stock over 5 or 10 years would be plenty of fuel in the fire of charitable giving.
For reference, MacKenzie Scott just gave away $4bn over one year that, I think, came from Amazon stock and it doesn't seem to have hurt the price?
> if Jeff Bezos said he was selling $30bn of stock to contribute to charity right now so he could get critics off his back and concentrate on Amazon
I wonder if a lot of people would view that as the CEO version of a politician saying "I'm stepping down to spend time with my family", and immediately try to find the "true" reason he's selling the stock. Perhaps even causing more of a problem than if he had said "I'm selling this stock to buy a _really_ fancy yacht"
I wonder if a lot of people would view that as the CEO version of a politician saying "I'm stepping down to spend time with my family", and immediately try to find the "true" reason he's selling the stock. Perhaps even causing more of a problem than if he had said "I'm selling this stock to buy a _really_ fancy yacht"
Maybe? I haven't seen any reactions like that to MacKenzie Scott's contributions.
I thought when such large quantities of shares were being traded, its typically done in a dark pool so as to purposefully not impact the stock price. Dark pools are a means for individuals or organizations who want to trade massive amounts to do so without impacting the public market.
Not that it matters who the wealthiest person on earth is, but western capitalists have a small fraction of the wealth that people like Putin and Xi have.
Putin's is unknown. An advisor said 70B in 2012 [1] Where do you see Xi having comparable substantial wealth? I see 500M to 1.5B.
Where do you get small fraction? That's not true at all. I can't even see either of your examples as having more, let alone a multiple.
Anyway, the wealthiest western capitalists aren't even accounted for. "author Malcolm Gladwell estimated the value of Rockefeller's fortune at its peak, in today's dollars, at $318.3 billion" [2] It's divided among the family at this point though of course.
But of the living individuals that we know (Bezos/Gates/Musk/Zuck), and have accurate info for, your statement is not true.
[1] https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/
[2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-rich-is-the-rockefel...
Where do you get small fraction? That's not true at all. I can't even see either of your examples as having more, let alone a multiple.
Anyway, the wealthiest western capitalists aren't even accounted for. "author Malcolm Gladwell estimated the value of Rockefeller's fortune at its peak, in today's dollars, at $318.3 billion" [2] It's divided among the family at this point though of course.
But of the living individuals that we know (Bezos/Gates/Musk/Zuck), and have accurate info for, your statement is not true.
[1] https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/
[2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-rich-is-the-rockefel...
Why on earth would Xi allow his wealth to be known? The media in China isn’t even allowed to cover basic actions of the CCP. But China is a country run by bribes and guanxi. And all bribes flow up. It is possible he has decided to not accept the payments, but very unlikely.
That's precisely my point. We only have some very limited data available. And none of that says anywhere near 200B or multiples of that as you present as a fact.
2015 estimate for Putin was $200b[1] by Bill Browder, who for a period of time, had been mistakenly believed to manage Vlad's wealth, and was active in the privatization investment opportunities in Russia.
In 2015, the richest western capitalist was Gates with $80b[2], which means Putin was worth 2.5x more than Gates.
Another example of how these kleptocracies tend to funnel wealth up into the top is Kadafi, who was estimated to have died with $200b stashed around the world[3]. At that time, Bill Gates was worth $61b[4].
Without proof, I grant that you can believe whatever you want about Xi. But you can believe he's a unique benevolent snowflake in the history of totalitarians, or you can believe he's just like the rest. I'm going to assume he's like the rest and wait for proof that shows the opposite.
[1] https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/15/putins-net-wor...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2015/03/02/forbes-...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2011-oct-21-la-fg-kada...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/03/07/forbes-wo...
In 2015, the richest western capitalist was Gates with $80b[2], which means Putin was worth 2.5x more than Gates.
Another example of how these kleptocracies tend to funnel wealth up into the top is Kadafi, who was estimated to have died with $200b stashed around the world[3]. At that time, Bill Gates was worth $61b[4].
Without proof, I grant that you can believe whatever you want about Xi. But you can believe he's a unique benevolent snowflake in the history of totalitarians, or you can believe he's just like the rest. I'm going to assume he's like the rest and wait for proof that shows the opposite.
[1] https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/15/putins-net-wor...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2015/03/02/forbes-...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2011-oct-21-la-fg-kada...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/03/07/forbes-wo...
Putin had $200 billion in 2017 if you believe this senate testimony. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/financier-bill-browder-says-...
That's an estimate by someone with insight, but not like they were the bookkeeper for Putin. And if true, that's still inline with the top western capitalists (which we have real data for). Not multiples of their wealth. That's ridiculous to assume and present as fact.
I'm curious about this. Is there any easy way to determine how much wealth Putin or Xi actually has? Or is any discussion about their wealth just anecdotal?
Pure speculation, but it’s easy to see how people like them can conceal their wealth. One data point is that Gadaffi had by some estimates, $200b in wealth stashed around the globe when they unwound his estate. Bill Browder asserted that, when Vald was consolidating his power, he took half ownership in all of the oligarchs’ business in exchange for not jailing them.
Here is another article that isn't just about farmland, but about land ownership in general: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/25/these-people...
Of note, the Gates don't even appear on this list. At first I thought it's because OP is only talking about farmland, but in the USA Today article the Simplot family apparently owns more than 400k acres for potato farming in Idaho, but doesn't even appear in the OP. I'm not sure what to make of the discrepancy.
Also for the sake of comparison, 240k acres is a good amount, but (as another commenter mentioned), it's also not. There are some cattle ranches larger than that. And for an example of non farm/ranch use, Bezos apparently owns over 400,000 acres in West Texas to be used for the Blue Origin launch facilities.
Of note, the Gates don't even appear on this list. At first I thought it's because OP is only talking about farmland, but in the USA Today article the Simplot family apparently owns more than 400k acres for potato farming in Idaho, but doesn't even appear in the OP. I'm not sure what to make of the discrepancy.
Also for the sake of comparison, 240k acres is a good amount, but (as another commenter mentioned), it's also not. There are some cattle ranches larger than that. And for an example of non farm/ranch use, Bezos apparently owns over 400,000 acres in West Texas to be used for the Blue Origin launch facilities.
You might be asking yourself "Why do billionaires own farm land?"
The answer is REAL simple. Taxes. Farmers get HUGE tax benefits that end up being particularly beneficial to the wealthy. Losses on farms translates into gigantic tax savings for billionaires.
How do I know this? My small family farm of 40 acres had major benefits to my fairly wealthy parents. There were many years they didn't pay taxes as a result of the farm.
The answer is REAL simple. Taxes. Farmers get HUGE tax benefits that end up being particularly beneficial to the wealthy. Losses on farms translates into gigantic tax savings for billionaires.
How do I know this? My small family farm of 40 acres had major benefits to my fairly wealthy parents. There were many years they didn't pay taxes as a result of the farm.
The biggest land owners in the US own forest land, where there is no agriculture (and for good reason). The land is owned as investment and for the possible resource exploitation, like oil extraction or logging, for example.
The ranches that large tend to be out West where land is less productive for cows, you may need 10 or more acres per cow because of the brutal winters and arid climate. Whereas in say, East Texas you probably only need 1 or 2 acres per cow.
The cattle ranches may be counting differently; they own a few hundred acres outright but then have grazing rights on federal land that might make the "ranch area" quite large, but without full ownership of most of it.
I think this is discussing private ownership versus corporate.
EDIT: I'm less sure about this now, might just refer to government versus non government?
EDIT: I'm less sure about this now, might just refer to government versus non government?
Don't a lot of these lists allow people to pay certain amount to be taken off the list and remain anonymous?
Now it is much easier for Bill to be outstanding in his field.
He has many fields from which to choose, but, alas, he can only be outstanding in one.
Dad?
Booooo
The important part is "private owner".
Most land is owned by corporations, that's more to worry about.
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.
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.
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.
I wouldn't worry that much about it. It isn't entirely uncommon for a farm or ranch to be registered as an LLC even if it is a small family operation. That land ownership would count as 'corporation owned', but in practice, it is just a normal family farm/ranch.
source: I grew up in, and live in Nebraska. Family ranch was registered as an LLC, but we were just a small family operation, and by this point nonexistent (parents sold out and retired).
source: I grew up in, and live in Nebraska. Family ranch was registered as an LLC, but we were just a small family operation, and by this point nonexistent (parents sold out and retired).
Always good to see NE residents on HN...one of maybe < 100 i'd guess.
You have a point that land is a scarce and excludable good and there's an opportunity cost to a corporation owning land.
The initial purchase of the land by the corporation wasn't zero sum, however. The previous landowner and the corporation both gained subjective utility from the transaction (otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in it), so the transaction itself was positive sum.
The initial purchase of the land by the corporation wasn't zero sum, however. The previous landowner and the corporation both gained subjective utility from the transaction (otherwise they wouldn't have engaged in it), so the transaction itself was positive sum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The incentives don't need to be different, it just goes back to my underlying philosophy of business.
People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist.
As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can.
But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.
People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist.
As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can.
But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.
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.
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.
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.
Note that there are other ways to organize people to farm efficiently, like worker cooperatives.
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-does...
https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-does...
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.
Corporate farming COULD be more efficient, but in common practice it is not.
> 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].
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].
Would you consider transportation more efficient if it got you to your destination faster and cheaper, but put out 5x the pollution?
"The purpose of a corporation is to..."
...insulate management and shareholders from losses and litigation.
...insulate management and shareholders from losses and litigation.
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.
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.
Because public listed companies are swayed by winds of speculation
The title seems wrong, as the article specifies:
"our researchers identified dozens of different entities that own the Gateses’ assets"
It doesn't seem to specify how much Bill and Melinda privately own, but it seems like the majority is owned by organizations.
"our researchers identified dozens of different entities that own the Gateses’ assets"
It doesn't seem to specify how much Bill and Melinda privately own, but it seems like the majority is owned by organizations.
Irrelevant, but is "Gateses" really the correct way to pluralize the name?
Yes. Source: last name is single syllable and ends in -es. Also I googled it to make sure I wasn't making things up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-happens-t...
For ownership purposes in most jurisdictions in the US, private ownership is anything that's not government.
It includes individuals, privately-held & publically-traded corporations, and most trusts or other legal entities that aren't government controlled.
There might be different tax polices and exemptions carved out for the different entities, but the legal structure of ownership is the same.
This does not include anything federal, military, state, or local (including tribal) government, or is otherwise a special case, like some conservation non-profits, or things like public land trusts.
But if any part the government wants to expropriate or otherwise seize privately held land, it has to go through the same process no matter what type of legal entity.
It includes individuals, privately-held & publically-traded corporations, and most trusts or other legal entities that aren't government controlled.
There might be different tax polices and exemptions carved out for the different entities, but the legal structure of ownership is the same.
This does not include anything federal, military, state, or local (including tribal) government, or is otherwise a special case, like some conservation non-profits, or things like public land trusts.
But if any part the government wants to expropriate or otherwise seize privately held land, it has to go through the same process no matter what type of legal entity.
North Dakota is a bit strict on corporations owning a farm. "... since only a farm limited liability company may own or lease land used for farming or production of livestock."
https://sos.nd.gov/business/business-services/business-struc...
https://sos.nd.gov/business/business-services/business-struc...
The farm business is brutal. I think the dream of people moving to the country, owning some land, and living off of it comfortably is long gone and never coming back.
At least with big money owning the farms and absorbing the risk people can work in the ag industry for a salary without loosing their life savings.
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-toughest-industri...
[2] https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-...
At least with big money owning the farms and absorbing the risk people can work in the ag industry for a salary without loosing their life savings.
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-toughest-industri...
[2] https://time.com/5736789/small-american-farmers-debt-crisis-...
That hasn't been a dream since the....1900s? 1890s maybe? Homesteading saw its hey-day in the second half of the 1800s.
Farming is tough. Margins are low due to the nature of commodities. Very few 'go at it alone' farmers out there. Most went under, sold, died, or partnered up in the 1980s when the credit crisis hurt farms.
Farming is tough. Margins are low due to the nature of commodities. Very few 'go at it alone' farmers out there. Most went under, sold, died, or partnered up in the 1980s when the credit crisis hurt farms.
Work in the Ag business without losing what savings? The people who drive those $100k tractors are paid just barely over min wage. The migrant workforce in the fields are paid less than minimum wage.
This is a huge mischaracterization. Depending on the season and crop, migrant day workers in our area can pull $25-26 an hour. And there are fewer workers turning up every year to do it, so the cost is going up.
One of the issues in our area is how expensive it is to get enough labor for farms, so farmers are switching to easier crops to grow.
One of the issues in our area is how expensive it is to get enough labor for farms, so farmers are switching to easier crops to grow.
Farm labor is paid better than that. Even the illegals are getting more than they could get legally at the local fast food joint. It is really hard to get farm labor, and so they have to up the pay to attract people. The work is hard and the hours are long, but the pay is okay for the amount of skill required. (if you are reading this you can probably make a lot more money in the city)
All the others on the list are actual farmers.
* Number 2 on the list, Offutt family, grow potatoes in Minnesota. https://www.rdoffuttfarms.com/
* Number 3 on the list, Stewart and Lynda Resnick, have many agricultural innovations to their name, the biggest being Cutie oranges.
Here is an in-depth article: A Kingdom from Dust | Jan 31, 2018
https://story.californiasunday.com/resnick-a-kingdom-from-du...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19072078
* Number 4 on the list, Fanjul family, are Cuban brothers who own sugar plantations and the Domino Sugar company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers
* Number 5 on the list, Boswell family, pioneered cotton farming in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Griffin_Boswell
* Number 2 on the list, Offutt family, grow potatoes in Minnesota. https://www.rdoffuttfarms.com/
* Number 3 on the list, Stewart and Lynda Resnick, have many agricultural innovations to their name, the biggest being Cutie oranges.
Here is an in-depth article: A Kingdom from Dust | Jan 31, 2018
https://story.californiasunday.com/resnick-a-kingdom-from-du...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19072078
* Number 4 on the list, Fanjul family, are Cuban brothers who own sugar plantations and the Domino Sugar company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanjul_brothers
* Number 5 on the list, Boswell family, pioneered cotton farming in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Griffin_Boswell
This highlights why low land taxes and wealth inequality can lead to problems. Regarding just land (not other forms of wealth), a rising tide does not lift all boats.
Agreed. Lack of a land tax is one of the largest policy issues the western world has this day. I find it strange how little discussion there is about it though.
This is how you transfer intergenerational wealth.
Gates is famous for rejecting intergenerational wealth transfer.
Well, $10m is definitely wealth to you or me, but not to Bill Gates.
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-will-gates-ch...
Well, $10m is definitely wealth to you or me, but not to Bill Gates.
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-will-gates-ch...
He's been giving his money away for many years now and strangely is still one of the richest men in the world. I suspect that his desire to not give his kids money will work out much the same way - he gives them "only" $10m (of course, enough to live comfortably on for their entire lives) - but also, control of some billion dollar philanthropic fund.
> He's been giving his money away for many years now and strangely is still one of the richest men in the world.
My understanding is that most of his wealth is held in MSFT stock which has increased in value by over 4x since 2016.
So if he had given away 75% of his wealth in 2016, he'd still have the same net worth today.
My understanding is that most of his wealth is held in MSFT stock which has increased in value by over 4x since 2016.
So if he had given away 75% of his wealth in 2016, he'd still have the same net worth today.
Bill Gates holdings are actually pretty diversified. Most of his wealth is not in microsoft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Investment
Thanks for the correction, I didn't know this!
Not to mention that he probably owns a lot of stakes in tech startups, which have, on paper at least, appreciated quite dramatically in recent years.
I think Gates is probably to the point where it's functionally impossible for him to give away all of his money. The value of his personal brand and network is such that startups will probably give away decent chunks of their business just to be a part of that network.
I think Gates is probably to the point where it's functionally impossible for him to give away all of his money. The value of his personal brand and network is such that startups will probably give away decent chunks of their business just to be a part of that network.
Reframe “donations” as “PR expenses” and his continual wealth increase will make sense.
Yeah, but no. The problem is that the man invested in Microsoft, which has been proving itself to be a hell of an investment.
Sorry but spending / donating money is not a difficult thing to do. If you have billions of dollars, claim to be donating much of it, but somehow your wealth continues to increase, perhaps you’re not trying hard enough?
There's no "claim" - those donations and the records of the foundations are a matter of public record.
Also, completely liquidating and giving away his assets would result in a large payout once.. and then nothing ever again. You need money to make money, so holding onto some to appreciate in value (investments, interest, etc) results in more money being donated over a longer amount of time.
Also, completely liquidating and giving away his assets would result in a large payout once.. and then nothing ever again. You need money to make money, so holding onto some to appreciate in value (investments, interest, etc) results in more money being donated over a longer amount of time.
Giving away a million is easy, giving away a billion - or several - not so much. At least if you want the money to have an impact.
That doesn't make sense at all! What is this PR for? Are people buying more Windows Licenses because he is paying to charity? Are people sending money to him?
Is he making billions of dollars getting commission for books he recommend? What do you mean?
The PR is to counteract the realization that a handful of ultra wealthy individuals own more than the other 90% of humanity combined.
That's just a PR job.
Can you elaborate a little bit ?
A lot of "family farms" in the US these days are essentially a tax dodge.
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/112844547165831987...
Basically, there's a lot of tax breaks available if you designate your land a "farm", even if you don't grow anything. About 22% of farms in the US produce 0 output.
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/112844547165831987...
Basically, there's a lot of tax breaks available if you designate your land a "farm", even if you don't grow anything. About 22% of farms in the US produce 0 output.
Hmm...I have this data, I'm going to double check. Need to ensure the linked twitter thread is referring to sales, and not profit. Easy to hid profits in farming (nothing dodgy about it either). No better, no worse than every other industry in America. They take advantage of the laws as they are written.
Yeah, I don't fault any individual for using tax breaks legitimately available to them. It's a failure of leadership for not closing loopholes.
This is true and visible in the Bay Area. There are a number of large properties where the owners have a vineyard. The vineyard is really so some of their land can qualify for agricultural proprietary tax rate.
How do you know that's the reason and not that they legitimately wanted to have a vineyard? They don't tend to it and harvest from it? All the ones I've seen looked to be in use, but don't know for sure.
Many are in use, often with operations leased out. This produces some modicum of revenue to cover the farm designation. The real upside is the ownership and associated capital appreciation w/o as large an annual carry given reduced property taxes.
On the east coast you often see alpacas; their fur get harvested periodically.
Unfortunately these tricks are common in many states, especially in high tax states with wealthy residents trying to dodge taxes.
On the east coast you often see alpacas; their fur get harvested periodically.
Unfortunately these tricks are common in many states, especially in high tax states with wealthy residents trying to dodge taxes.
He's giving away basically all of his money, and leaving comparatively little to his kids, $10 million I think. It's a ton of money, but a small enough amount that they could spend through it in a generation if they aren't careful. Apparently he finds the idea of passing on vast fortunes to be distasteful.
Anyone know what happened to the Drummond family? Up until 3-4 years ago, they were ~23 on the Land Report list. Since then, they haven't been on the list at all (top 100). My suspicion is they re-structured and it's either hidden by trusts or it's been split among a half dozen family members and none of them are individually on the list.
I can’t give you any significant details, but I can confirm that they have sold some of their land since my family bought a bit of it.
is this the same Drummond of David Drummond, ex GOOGLE VP?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Drummond_(businessman)
Ted Turner owns 1.92M acres of land in the US.
Most of it is grazing land and ranch land. Farmland is rich fertile land with water resources and water rights.
No farm land was rich fertile land at some point but due to non-sustainable agriculture a lot of this land is no longer qualified to be called "rich fertile", maybe it still "fertile" or "somewhat fertile" but that's it.
That's a hefty claim. Got a source?
Just duckduckgo land desertification.
Thanks for mentioning desertification. This is a very important and crucial problem..and one with no easy answers.
Maybe not perfect answers, but letting beavers do their thing is somewhat easy and can lead to shockingly large amounts of water being conserved even in regions experiencing desertification[1][2]. The author of the linked article wrote a book about it, which is pretty fascinating, but there's also been studies in places like Colorado that view it as important enough that I believe it's now part of the state plan for water management.
[1] https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.15/wildlife-how-beavers-make-t...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2018/06/24/620402681/the-bountiful-benef...
[1] https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.15/wildlife-how-beavers-make-t...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2018/06/24/620402681/the-bountiful-benef...
I didn’t understand the comment. Can you rephrase it please?
He/She is claiming classifying farmland as 'fertile' is improper due to the depletion of the natural fertility of soil from intensive farming practices commonly employed in the US today.
Ahh. Got it. There is some truth to it as Ag is net net extractive.
Land has to be rotated for fertility and even then it takes decades and decades to build an inch of top soil. At our current global population , we are treading on thin ice..or rather upon eroding top soil. Sad truth.
Land has to be rotated for fertility and even then it takes decades and decades to build an inch of top soil. At our current global population , we are treading on thin ice..or rather upon eroding top soil. Sad truth.
I think they missed a comma after the initial "No".
I did. I also should stop starting sentences with "No,".
The meaning, which I mean to convey with it and what I do convey with it differ. At least wrt. politeness ;-)
The meaning, which I mean to convey with it and what I do convey with it differ. At least wrt. politeness ;-)
The BMG Foundation seems to have very specific requirements for land purchases that are more than just "good farm land."
Aside from the land in Benton County, and it's arability, they paid close attention to available water, access to interstate transportation including road (I-82, I-84), rail (BNSF) and air (Tri-Cities Airport), and reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas (Seattle, Portland, Boise).
No doubt stable gas and electric are nearby along with high-speed fiber (next to the BNSF rail).
It's a mistake to think of Bill Gates as the next Mr. Douglas too [0]. His acquisitions are consistent with a mind towards building "smart cities" like the one proposed west of Phoenix.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Acres
Aside from the land in Benton County, and it's arability, they paid close attention to available water, access to interstate transportation including road (I-82, I-84), rail (BNSF) and air (Tri-Cities Airport), and reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas (Seattle, Portland, Boise).
No doubt stable gas and electric are nearby along with high-speed fiber (next to the BNSF rail).
It's a mistake to think of Bill Gates as the next Mr. Douglas too [0]. His acquisitions are consistent with a mind towards building "smart cities" like the one proposed west of Phoenix.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Acres
TFA's original title "Bill Gates: America’s Top Farmland Owner" seems fine. Did the submitter editorialize the current title of "Bill and Melinda Gates revealed as largest private farmland owners in US" or was there some other reason for changing it?
Per US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2.2 billion acres of land in the US. 900 million of that is marked as "farmland". 400 million of that is marked as "cropland", and 300 million of that is "harvested cropland". There's also 400 million acres of "pastureland", and 75 million acres of "woodland".
I couldn't tell what kind of land Bill Gates owns. It does matter, but not all that much, because however you slice it, it's a pretty small amount of the total.
I couldn't tell what kind of land Bill Gates owns. It does matter, but not all that much, because however you slice it, it's a pretty small amount of the total.
If they care about global warming there is tremendous potential for carbon sequestration in agriculture they could push. Obvious examples would be: no-till practices that keep soil carbon sequestered, forest farming methods that mix woodlands into agricultural land improving soil and vegetation carbon retention, capturing agricultural waste carbon in biochar, and reducing wide area cattle grazing methods which adversely effect soil carbon in prairie lands by preventing deep grass root structures.
[deleted]
For two people, or their foundation?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns a ton of land as well. Likely far more.
https://www.deseret.com/1991/7/2/18928879/lds-church-real-es...
The future of farming is most likely vertical farming with controlled conditions or underground. Especially when humans start going to other planets, this will be key.
Side note: Mormon church is the biggest land owner in lots of areas including Florida and Utah. [1][2] Also own lots of land in other states where they are top 10 like Montana and Idaho. [3]
Ted Turner and the Wilks family are also massive land owners in Montana, Idaho and other areas. [4]
Here's the top land owners in all of US as of 2019: [4]
FAMILY ACRES
John Malone 2.20M
Emmerson family 1.96M
Ted Turner 1.92M
Stan Kroenke 1.38M
Reed family 1.33M
Irving family 1.25M
Brad Kelley 1.15M
Singleton family 1.10M
King Ranch heirs 0.93M
Peter Buck 0.93M
John Malone is the largest land owner in the US [5].
Largest land owners are mostly corporate, private individuals and in some states, religions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Ranches
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-florida-mormons/mormon-c...
[3] https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/money/2016/06/21/who...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-largest-landowners-i...
[5] https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/john-malone-eve...
Side note: Mormon church is the biggest land owner in lots of areas including Florida and Utah. [1][2] Also own lots of land in other states where they are top 10 like Montana and Idaho. [3]
Ted Turner and the Wilks family are also massive land owners in Montana, Idaho and other areas. [4]
Here's the top land owners in all of US as of 2019: [4]
FAMILY ACRES
John Malone 2.20M
Emmerson family 1.96M
Ted Turner 1.92M
Stan Kroenke 1.38M
Reed family 1.33M
Irving family 1.25M
Brad Kelley 1.15M
Singleton family 1.10M
King Ranch heirs 0.93M
Peter Buck 0.93M
John Malone is the largest land owner in the US [5].
Largest land owners are mostly corporate, private individuals and in some states, religions.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Ranches
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-florida-mormons/mormon-c...
[3] https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/money/2016/06/21/who...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-largest-landowners-i...
[5] https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/john-malone-eve...
Vertical farming doesn't work out in general. Plants tend to be limited by light, so when you go up you shadow horizontal land. There is some efficiency gain because solar panels -> LED can convert light wave lengths, but I don't know if it is enough to overcome the losses in the system plus the cost of the building.
Vertical farms are all niches: lettuce is high value, and spoils fast. Thus they can get closer/faster to market by going vertical. They convert electric (coal and natural gas) to light, so they are not very environmentally sound.
Vertical farms are all niches: lettuce is high value, and spoils fast. Thus they can get closer/faster to market by going vertical. They convert electric (coal and natural gas) to light, so they are not very environmentally sound.
From the numbers ive seen (which could be off), you get like 250 watts per square meter of solar panels, but you need atleast 350-500 watts per square meter of the highest efficiency currently available grow LEDs. And that is assuming you grow them in a building with higher than natural air temperatures because "wasted" wavelengths aren't really wasted because plants need them to elevate leaf temperatures significantly higher than ambient temperatures. So it has heating costs also.
Also, the reason they grow lettuce for these tests and not more calorie dense or nutrient packed plants is because lettuce requires little light and little nutrients, most of its weight and volume is just water and air. Growing wheat or potatoes or other primary food crops requires a lot more light and a lot more nutrients than these demonstration crops.
Also, the reason they grow lettuce for these tests and not more calorie dense or nutrient packed plants is because lettuce requires little light and little nutrients, most of its weight and volume is just water and air. Growing wheat or potatoes or other primary food crops requires a lot more light and a lot more nutrients than these demonstration crops.
> The future of farming is most likely vertical farming with controlled conditions
Not even for high price per area needed products like salad vertical farming is profitable yet. Most of the farmland is used for crops that use up a lot of space like wheat, corn or soybeans.
Not even for high price per area needed products like salad vertical farming is profitable yet. Most of the farmland is used for crops that use up a lot of space like wheat, corn or soybeans.
Marijuana farming indoors/vertical will probably be the crop that pushes innovation in this area and most is grown indoors at minimum.
Over time, controlled conditions will be a necessity. Right now the cost is still cheaper for most on land, that will change, especially if we move to new planets but definitely if we don't due to population.
Necessity will fuel the innovation here and solar/light innovation will be a big future industry.
Writing off vertical/indoor farming is like writing off other fuel choices or EVs, until it happens everyone said it was impossible but necessity changes the impossible mainly due to changes in cost/investment and returns, as well as new technologies made possible over time.
Lots of examples of successes already besides in marijuana. Essentially just green houses that can be stacked like modular farming.
https://interestingengineering.com/13-vertical-farming-innov...
Over time, controlled conditions will be a necessity. Right now the cost is still cheaper for most on land, that will change, especially if we move to new planets but definitely if we don't due to population.
Necessity will fuel the innovation here and solar/light innovation will be a big future industry.
Writing off vertical/indoor farming is like writing off other fuel choices or EVs, until it happens everyone said it was impossible but necessity changes the impossible mainly due to changes in cost/investment and returns, as well as new technologies made possible over time.
Lots of examples of successes already besides in marijuana. Essentially just green houses that can be stacked like modular farming.
https://interestingengineering.com/13-vertical-farming-innov...
Nope, farming using land has free energy (sun) and more room (with nothing else to use it for). As such, its scale and efficiency will always compete well with vertical farming which has considerable more overhead.
It isn't an either/or on Earth. Even the USDA thinks indoor/controlled vertical farming is key in the future [1]
For other planets, we will have to have vertical or underground farming and controlled conditions.
As more and more land on Earth gets used and population increases, climate changes, soil is more and more less fertile, the only way to meet that demand is indoor, up or down.
Even industries like marijuana, where hydroponics and farming is more indoors, much of that is indoors and can be vertical.
There are lots of innovations yet to be made that will make it more of a possibility and ultimately a necessity [2].
When it comes down to it, growing in controlled conditions is easier and less risky, growing outdoors is harder. Though it doesn't work for all right now, the areas it works for those elements are key.
Even growing a single plant indoors versus outdoors, so much less to think about in controlled conditions. Farmers can be wiped out with a flood, or an insect, all of those things are less risky indoors where possible.
[1] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2018/08/14/vertical-farming-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
For other planets, we will have to have vertical or underground farming and controlled conditions.
As more and more land on Earth gets used and population increases, climate changes, soil is more and more less fertile, the only way to meet that demand is indoor, up or down.
Even industries like marijuana, where hydroponics and farming is more indoors, much of that is indoors and can be vertical.
There are lots of innovations yet to be made that will make it more of a possibility and ultimately a necessity [2].
When it comes down to it, growing in controlled conditions is easier and less risky, growing outdoors is harder. Though it doesn't work for all right now, the areas it works for those elements are key.
Even growing a single plant indoors versus outdoors, so much less to think about in controlled conditions. Farmers can be wiped out with a flood, or an insect, all of those things are less risky indoors where possible.
[1] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2018/08/14/vertical-farming-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
Those linked articles from the USDA talk about vertical farming for very niche products: fresh greens mostly and possibly some spices. Vertical farming will not be possible to supply the protein, starch, or oil needs of the world. Only large scale farming (think US Midwest) can provide at this scale. People simply underestimate how many acres of farmland there are or don't appreciate the scale and efficiency of modern farming.
https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-does...
It should also be noted that the world population will peak around ~10B people. We will have plenty of food to feed all of these people (minus corruption and politics).
https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-does...
It should also be noted that the world population will peak around ~10B people. We will have plenty of food to feed all of these people (minus corruption and politics).
Again, it isn't either/or right now. It is currently cheaper to use the land and needs to, over decades that will have to change by necessity. I surely do appreciate the scale as I have family in farming and it is massive. However, land is also in demand and will only grow, eventually it won't be economical for many types of crop. Already marijuana and herbs are mostly vertical/indoors. Anything that grows in a greenhouse currently is apt for vertical/indoor farming.
Lots of innovations are underway for it. https://interestingengineering.com/13-vertical-farming-innov...
The comments here are alot like the EV comments back in 2000, can't be done, battery tech not there, no way to fuel on long trips etc etc.
Eventually the necessity will require it either due to population, climate change or other planets.
Sure, right this very moment it isn't as viable, but it is for many industries like herbs, marijuana and as you say niche products. That is how all innovations start.
Farming will still be massive on land when this happens as cattle, pigs, chickens etc need lots of land. Many of the biggest farms are cattle ranches so those won't be going anywhere much longer.
Lots of innovations are underway for it. https://interestingengineering.com/13-vertical-farming-innov...
The comments here are alot like the EV comments back in 2000, can't be done, battery tech not there, no way to fuel on long trips etc etc.
Eventually the necessity will require it either due to population, climate change or other planets.
Sure, right this very moment it isn't as viable, but it is for many industries like herbs, marijuana and as you say niche products. That is how all innovations start.
Farming will still be massive on land when this happens as cattle, pigs, chickens etc need lots of land. Many of the biggest farms are cattle ranches so those won't be going anywhere much longer.
I'm not totally arguing against you. Indoor farming will have its place. I would say land is NOT in demand though, population trends clearly shows people/society migrating towards high density cities as opposed to spreading out where there is land (central US). You can literally drive around the Midwest and see tens of millions of acres that have no other purposes than....to just sit there, chilling.
The 'buy land, they don't make more of it' is almost a meme at this point. We have plenty of land.
ETA: I had the spice and niche crops comment in my first comment, so yes we agree. Most of farming is to produce starch,oil, or protein at scale. Spices are a very very very (very) small slice
The 'buy land, they don't make more of it' is almost a meme at this point. We have plenty of land.
ETA: I had the spice and niche crops comment in my first comment, so yes we agree. Most of farming is to produce starch,oil, or protein at scale. Spices are a very very very (very) small slice
I hear you on land and population. There is also climate changes, limitations to fertile soil and many other things.
As I mentioned in my edited comment above, most large farms are cattle ranches or livestock that need massive amounts of land. Those also aren't as affected by weather. Unless people stop eating meat (they won't) then ranches will always exist and there will be at least a doubling of the need based on current populations to projected.
For plants, controlled conditions are always better. So when certain crops are viable to do indoors/vertical it will be economical to do so with less risk. That is already the case with marijuana, herbs etc that are smaller but also big business and will grow (no pun intended).
If people do start eating more plants instead of meat, and products move plant based more and more, indoor/vertical farming could become more necessary largely due to access/shipping/fulfillment and even labor availability. Right now current farming would not be able to support if everyone became vegan or vegetarian.
If population does top out and people are happy in cities, then your prediction is probably correct. If people don't want to live in cities as much due to other situations (climate change or pandemics or politics or other) some of that land may be more profitable in other uses. As industries move more remote and housing costs are too high in cities, people will spread out.
Efficiencies also come with indoor/vertical that you can't get on land: limited use of pesticides, recycled water or water constraints, recreating soil fertility, weather control, etc. Where soil is not fertile, vertical/indoor farming is a potential solution as it can go where land based farming can't always.
Final point, indoor/vertical/controlled farming would make humans able to survive on other planets or if anything were to ever happen with events that might make outdoor conditions risky or less viable. Everybody's bunker is going to need a good indoor farm.
As I mentioned in my edited comment above, most large farms are cattle ranches or livestock that need massive amounts of land. Those also aren't as affected by weather. Unless people stop eating meat (they won't) then ranches will always exist and there will be at least a doubling of the need based on current populations to projected.
For plants, controlled conditions are always better. So when certain crops are viable to do indoors/vertical it will be economical to do so with less risk. That is already the case with marijuana, herbs etc that are smaller but also big business and will grow (no pun intended).
If people do start eating more plants instead of meat, and products move plant based more and more, indoor/vertical farming could become more necessary largely due to access/shipping/fulfillment and even labor availability. Right now current farming would not be able to support if everyone became vegan or vegetarian.
If population does top out and people are happy in cities, then your prediction is probably correct. If people don't want to live in cities as much due to other situations (climate change or pandemics or politics or other) some of that land may be more profitable in other uses. As industries move more remote and housing costs are too high in cities, people will spread out.
Efficiencies also come with indoor/vertical that you can't get on land: limited use of pesticides, recycled water or water constraints, recreating soil fertility, weather control, etc. Where soil is not fertile, vertical/indoor farming is a potential solution as it can go where land based farming can't always.
Final point, indoor/vertical/controlled farming would make humans able to survive on other planets or if anything were to ever happen with events that might make outdoor conditions risky or less viable. Everybody's bunker is going to need a good indoor farm.
Smart move from a smart, rich man. Lots of global farmland will lose yield do to aquifer depletion, snowcap accumulation changes in western watersheds, heat waves, and storm damage. Food security is a thing of the past. High quality farmland is not an infinite resource and almost totally utilized outside of where it's been replaced with residential development in the Northeast US.
Very few farms are irrigated (acreage-wise). Aquifer depletion (if it happens) would only affect a small percentage of farms. Most farms are rainfed
ETA: About 90% of farms are non-irrigated
ETA: About 90% of farms are non-irrigated
My impression was that the Ogalla aquifer was stressed. Considering potable water consumption is relatively inelastic, what would that mean for agriculture usage if groundwater sources of potable water were depleted?
Similarly, the largest land owner in Scotland (and UK) is... the Danish clothing magnate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Holch_Povlsen ( the richest Dane, #254 on Bloomberg's list ahead of e.g. LEGO family whose wealth is split).
Interestingly, this was "Big Short" Michael Burry's recent strategy as well [1]: "Why This Legendary Investor Doubled Down On Farmland"
[1] https://farmfolio.net/articles/farmland-invetor-mike-burry/
[1] https://farmfolio.net/articles/farmland-invetor-mike-burry/
> Farmland in Eastern Washington and neighboring Oregon is blessed with abundant moisture, cheap electricity, and unrivaled soils.
unrivaled? Try the gulf of Naples in Italy, or Eastern Sicily, or Eastern Japan, or a dozen other locations I'm not even aware of.
Most of America is too "old" (in terms of Billions of years) to have "unrivaled" soils.
unrivaled? Try the gulf of Naples in Italy, or Eastern Sicily, or Eastern Japan, or a dozen other locations I'm not even aware of.
Most of America is too "old" (in terms of Billions of years) to have "unrivaled" soils.
Did anyone else read that and wonder, "Okay, so what is so special about the single acre of land in New Mexico?"
I was thinking it was something having to do with original Microsoft.
That or he owns the Atari burial site with the E.T. Games.
That or he owns the Atari burial site with the E.T. Games.
They own the highest value of farmland of any private individuals--which is leagues different than the most acreage.
Is dear old Bill some kind of survivalist?
Is land a better place to park wealth than stocks I wonder.
As they say "They're not making any more of it".
As they say "They're not making any more of it".
I doubt there's a notion of "better" here and I doubt this land represents a meaningful chunk of his wealth. It's more about diversification on one hand and perhaps a good opportunity to buy this land on the other.
When I ran the numbers, it looked like farm land yields + crop prices + land prices made for a bad long-term investment relative to stocks.
Assuming there isn't some ideological reason the Gates are buying farmland, it's probably better viewed as a hedge/diversification -- it may not be a very good investment, yield-wise, but it is decoupled from a lot of other investments.
Assuming there isn't some ideological reason the Gates are buying farmland, it's probably better viewed as a hedge/diversification -- it may not be a very good investment, yield-wise, but it is decoupled from a lot of other investments.
Small farming is a decent side-gig. Like rental properties, you can earn a good hourly rate on your labor with some capital investment. But the return on purely hands-off investing is minimal or negative.
I know a few people that run small, ~5-acre farms that grow soybeans or corn. From what I gather, they work the equivalent of a few weekends over the summer and earn a few grand an acre after costs. The gotcha seems to be equipment; it's so expensive that one would need huge tracts of land to cover the costs. One guy I know paid someone a % of yield to handle the plowing/harvesting. While my cousin keeps an old, depression-era tractor going and uses that. I imagine some might just lease out the land and collect just enough to cover property taxes.
This seems like a pretty common setup in the midwest. If you travel down some rural back roads, you'll come up on small 2-5 acre plots surrounded by houses. More than likely, these are owned and managed by someone nearby as a side hustle.
I know a few people that run small, ~5-acre farms that grow soybeans or corn. From what I gather, they work the equivalent of a few weekends over the summer and earn a few grand an acre after costs. The gotcha seems to be equipment; it's so expensive that one would need huge tracts of land to cover the costs. One guy I know paid someone a % of yield to handle the plowing/harvesting. While my cousin keeps an old, depression-era tractor going and uses that. I imagine some might just lease out the land and collect just enough to cover property taxes.
This seems like a pretty common setup in the midwest. If you travel down some rural back roads, you'll come up on small 2-5 acre plots surrounded by houses. More than likely, these are owned and managed by someone nearby as a side hustle.
Are you sure on the few grand per acre?
Corn yields were ~180 bushels / acre for 2020, and corn prices were [will be, since it is still being sold] $4.85, which comes out to $873 / acre. You might clear a few grand for the entire small field, but even with a second planting of winter wheat I have a hard time imagining making four figures per acre after expenses.
Corn yields were ~180 bushels / acre for 2020, and corn prices were [will be, since it is still being sold] $4.85, which comes out to $873 / acre. You might clear a few grand for the entire small field, but even with a second planting of winter wheat I have a hard time imagining making four figures per acre after expenses.
Unless it a specialty crop like pumpkins or is an organic operation, not a chance this happens with corn or soy farms. Your numbers are good. Total operating costs for a corn acre in 2019 were ~700 dollars.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-r...
Better link: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-r...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-r...
Better link: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-r...
You're estimates sound about right. For my cousin at least, I know what how much he gets paid for his portion of the crop yield each year, but I'm just estimating on the acreage he maintains. So I'm clearly underestimating the amount of land he's working.
Depends on the land and property tax assessment. I’ve been mulling buying some land since interest rates are so low now...but it’s hard to see the value of return when you factor in mortgage fees and property taxes.
You have to run the numbers over 30 years. Over 30 years the rent will increase (as will taxes), but the payments stay the same. Then the payments go to zero and you get a big payoff. If you can't commit to at least 30 years it is probably bad (you can change your mind as conditions change, but 30 years should be the plan) .
You want to share-crop for part of the price. It gives you incentive to ensure the farmer is farming the land as opposed to mining it for the nutrients before leaving you with dead land. Because you share some of the risk (and will have to cover it in bad years - there will be bad 5 year stretches so make sure you can budget for this!) you can get a greater return long term.
You want to share-crop for part of the price. It gives you incentive to ensure the farmer is farming the land as opposed to mining it for the nutrients before leaving you with dead land. Because you share some of the risk (and will have to cover it in bad years - there will be bad 5 year stretches so make sure you can budget for this!) you can get a greater return long term.
It is a decent place to park money. Cash has inflation effects. Land is a lot less susceptible to that.
Thats what I was thinking. It's less susceptible to 3% per year inflation.
I heard London had a lot of empty places from the rich buying up all the houses just for money parking purposes and not living there.
I heard London had a lot of empty places from the rich buying up all the houses just for money parking purposes and not living there.
Ah, the slow creep back to agricultural serfdom, where the rich own the land the serfs own nothing.
Bill has been known for getting in on buying vast amounts of resources that underpin society. He's the single largest shareholder Canadian National Railway, who owns most of the rail infrastructure in Canada.
What's farmland going for these days (dollars per acre)? I know there are large variations depending on the details (productivity, amount of water, etc), but what's the rough amount?
It depends on where you're looking. Like housing, prices vary widely all over the country. Quality farm land anywhere on the west coast seems to be out of my budget as far as I can tell (and I've done a lot of research), but in places like Vermont, the midwest, and the south it seems quite affordable.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-v...
Added: Check out the productivity by switching this to 'Yield per acre' https://observablehq.com/@kickout/usda-nass-map-extra-statis...
Added: Check out the productivity by switching this to 'Yield per acre' https://observablehq.com/@kickout/usda-nass-map-extra-statis...
That depends entirely on the area, the soil, the water rights etc.
Here in Indiana an acre of farmland will average somewhere in the $7000 per acre range for 'average' soil.
See this report from Purdue https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/home/wp-content/uploads/2...
Here in Indiana an acre of farmland will average somewhere in the $7000 per acre range for 'average' soil.
See this report from Purdue https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/home/wp-content/uploads/2...
USDA 2020 land value summary
https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/...
Does anyone know if the data they used for this report is available online? It would be cool to see a breakdown greater than by state (the image shown in the article).
“Buy land, they aren't making it anymore.” – Mark Twain.
Interestingly we have more land now than the previous generation did. (5,237 new square miles of land since 1985)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-coasts-idUS...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-coasts-idUS...
Interesting fact, but with world population doubling every 60 years or so, 5000 sq mi won't change things much.
Hopefully this will help convince people that, yes, land is still important, and yes, we still need a land value tax!
Ted Turner owns around 2 million acres and about 50,000 head of buffalo.
So, Bill's got some catching up to do.
So, Bill's got some catching up to do.
Does this also mean that they're the largest private recipients of farm subsidies?
Farm Subsidies are largely a myth and a misconstruction of "externalities" as subsidies. If you knew how to get the alleged subsidies the media likes to trot out to disparage farmers into the hands of actual farmers while charging a small % as a consulting fee you'd be unimaginably wealthy.
USDA estimated farmers received $46.5 billion in direct payments in 2020. Where did this money actually go?
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833
The past decade it has been only about 10 billion a year with fixed direct payments largely eliminated in 2014. 2020 will obviously be an exception due to Covid-19. Most of the recent payments are Market Protection Programs to prevent exports from being wrecked by retaliatory tariffs under Trump.
https://www.farmers.gov/manage/mfp
That's very much a means-tested program to prevent farmers from being driven into bankruptcy by tariffs on things they've already produced. It's not a magic money fountain.
That's very much a means-tested program to prevent farmers from being driven into bankruptcy by tariffs on things they've already produced. It's not a magic money fountain.
This doesn't really answer my question. I knew the money was given for reasons. The question is who is really getting it.
Note that the same report says that excluding subsidies, farmer net income increased in 2020 over 2019, so I'm not convinced the Covid pandemic is a good reason.
Note that the same report says that excluding subsidies, farmer net income increased in 2020 over 2019, so I'm not convinced the Covid pandemic is a good reason.
I'm only upvoting b/c you clearly have navigated USDA ERS website before... (or google skills are lvl 100)
That type of info should be a whole lot easier to access and digest than it currently is.
That type of info should be a whole lot easier to access and digest than it currently is.
Hard to say. Farm subsidies have limits to discourage this. There are a ton of loop holes, and not all crops qualify for subsidies. There is also debate about what even is a subsidy.
It used to be the Church of LDS due to cattle ranching, right?
I'd be happy to just have 10 acres for my wife and I :(
If you aren't picky about location, you can have that for relatively little money. Less than $100K and sometimes with a salvageable house.
Sure, and where you can get 10 acres and a livable house for 100k or less, you can't find work .
My wife and I just spent 178k on just over a half acre + house in November. We don't get residential mail delivery, closest grocery is about 15 miles away, closest gas station abut 6 miles away. Our town is a little over 300 people, with no police, the fire department is volunteer, and if we had to call 911 for a medical emergency an ambulance is probably 15-20 minutes away. All of those sacrifices just to be able to afford a half acre.
The appraiser refused to agree to the listing price, so we had to scramble and get cash gifts from family after we'd already made an offer. Two offers before us fell through and we were in a 24-hour bid war with another potential buyer.
I make 36k a year and my wife is a public school teacher, we consider ourselves to be doing very good compared to many we know and this is the best we can do.
Here is a little less than 20 acres within a half hour of me, just land, no buildings. It is 6.91x my gross annual income. Just about no one makes land loans so I'd need to have 249,000 USD as cold hard cash just for the land, then need another 50-125k to build a house. Then I'd have to drill a well, then install septic, then get it changed from light-industrial to residential. All in I'd need 350-450k dollars to make it work. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/7700-N-Cou...
Similarly close is this one https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/959-E-Coun... for 400k USD with 10 acres and, admittedly, an absurdly large house.
No one is going to give a guy making 36k a 400k loan, and there's no realistic way I, at 35, can realistically save 350-450k cash to buy land and build a house before I'm too old to do a lot of the initial work the land would need for my purposes.
I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted too. Is it because I don't earn as much as you so my opinion isn't valid? Is it because I wish I lived in a world where I could afford 0.004132231% of the land that Bill Gates owns?
My wife and I just spent 178k on just over a half acre + house in November. We don't get residential mail delivery, closest grocery is about 15 miles away, closest gas station abut 6 miles away. Our town is a little over 300 people, with no police, the fire department is volunteer, and if we had to call 911 for a medical emergency an ambulance is probably 15-20 minutes away. All of those sacrifices just to be able to afford a half acre.
The appraiser refused to agree to the listing price, so we had to scramble and get cash gifts from family after we'd already made an offer. Two offers before us fell through and we were in a 24-hour bid war with another potential buyer.
I make 36k a year and my wife is a public school teacher, we consider ourselves to be doing very good compared to many we know and this is the best we can do.
Here is a little less than 20 acres within a half hour of me, just land, no buildings. It is 6.91x my gross annual income. Just about no one makes land loans so I'd need to have 249,000 USD as cold hard cash just for the land, then need another 50-125k to build a house. Then I'd have to drill a well, then install septic, then get it changed from light-industrial to residential. All in I'd need 350-450k dollars to make it work. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/7700-N-Cou...
Similarly close is this one https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/959-E-Coun... for 400k USD with 10 acres and, admittedly, an absurdly large house.
No one is going to give a guy making 36k a 400k loan, and there's no realistic way I, at 35, can realistically save 350-450k cash to buy land and build a house before I'm too old to do a lot of the initial work the land would need for my purposes.
I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted too. Is it because I don't earn as much as you so my opinion isn't valid? Is it because I wish I lived in a world where I could afford 0.004132231% of the land that Bill Gates owns?
That is expensive as fuck compared to land around me. I live near a town of 1200, you can easily get cleared land for $1500 or less per acre. Prime land here will be worth more, but mostly because it has a higher value as a prospect for non-farming expansion and housing.
For me at least, it's not just the idea of cheap land. The soil makeup, rainfall, growing zone, etc. all matter. You can go buy scrubland stupid-cheap for example, but it's not really useful for homesteading. Similarly land that was over farmed can sometimes be had dirt cheap because the soil is basically depleted and is little more than dirt.
[deleted]
Yeah, ultimately this is the really sad consequence of non-local land ownership. Homeownership has been put out of reach for pretty much any American.
Hell, I read here yesterday that 44% of Americans apparently make less than $18k/year.
I'd kill for 10 acres. Even 1 acre near any kind of town is currently out of my reach as a lower-paid software engineer.
Hell, I read here yesterday that 44% of Americans apparently make less than $18k/year.
I'd kill for 10 acres. Even 1 acre near any kind of town is currently out of my reach as a lower-paid software engineer.
Depends on the town. I found a job in the middle of nowhere where I can afford 1 acre of land, and walk to the bus stop. I'm not a lower paid software engineer, but the lower paid ones should be able to afford the payments if they are careful.
There are not many such places in the world though. If my city was any smaller it wouldn't have bus service at all. Good luck finding one.
There are not many such places in the world though. If my city was any smaller it wouldn't have bus service at all. Good luck finding one.
> I found a job in the middle of nowhere where I can afford 1 acre of land, and walk to the bus stop.
It isn't the middle of nowhere if there is a bus stop. If there is a bus stop, it's a city. Most of the United States (by inhabited area, not population) doesn't even have public transportation.
It isn't the middle of nowhere if there is a bus stop. If there is a bus stop, it's a city. Most of the United States (by inhabited area, not population) doesn't even have public transportation.
Yes it is a city. There are a lot of similar small cities scattered across the US. It isn't the bay area where there are a lot of job choices.
> Even 1 acre near any kind of town is currently out of my reach as a lower-paid software engineer.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that, unless you have some specific personal circumstances such as very high debt or something.
If you're ready to go near any kind of town, it is absolutely possible to find 1 acre on a lower-paid SE salary.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that, unless you have some specific personal circumstances such as very high debt or something.
If you're ready to go near any kind of town, it is absolutely possible to find 1 acre on a lower-paid SE salary.
He needs a job in a town where he can find a job. There are many towns where a lower paid SE can afford an acre of land. And the one company that hires any software people at all has 1 opening every 2 decades. They often don't know how to get word to software people who might be interested so you are unlikely to find out about that opening. Some place in the country it exists though.
> He needs a job in a town where he can find a job.
I'll assume you meant that he needs a house in a town where he can find a job.
First, this was not mentioned as a prerequisite in his post, but fair.
Second, software engineer is the job that can be done from anywhere, if your priority is to find 1+ acre of land then maybe you can put up with working remotely.
And finally, there are still plenty of towns, with jobs where buying 1 acre of land is completely possible.
I'll assume you meant that he needs a house in a town where he can find a job.
First, this was not mentioned as a prerequisite in his post, but fair.
Second, software engineer is the job that can be done from anywhere, if your priority is to find 1+ acre of land then maybe you can put up with working remotely.
And finally, there are still plenty of towns, with jobs where buying 1 acre of land is completely possible.
Yeah, my goal is ultimately to work remotely to fund something like this. I don't even care about being 30 minutes from the nearest store... I am good at stockpiling and cooking my own stuff.
[deleted]
Who cares? Seriously.
If you think climate change is real, you probably should.
A super-wealthy technologist is investing in _farm land_. Why do you think that is?
A super-wealthy technologist is investing in _farm land_. Why do you think that is?
Combating climate change is my immediate thought as well. Gates is highly dedicated to reversing climate change. My suspicion is that good farmland is also very suitable for green energy production.
Plus, he can dictate terms of use for the land, preventing leasees from spraying harmful pesticides and using practices that destroy the productivity of the land. It's possible he could ban beef production from his land, preventing some volume of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.
Plus, he can dictate terms of use for the land, preventing leasees from spraying harmful pesticides and using practices that destroy the productivity of the land. It's possible he could ban beef production from his land, preventing some volume of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.
>A super-wealthy technologist is investing in _farm land_. Why do you think that is?
They have so much money they want to grow everything for their own consumption on the highest quality? If I were Gates rich I'd definitely do that. Don't even have to be that rich tbh
So I can give multiple answers, even contradicting ones too
They have so much money they want to grow everything for their own consumption on the highest quality? If I were Gates rich I'd definitely do that. Don't even have to be that rich tbh
So I can give multiple answers, even contradicting ones too
What qualifies a land as farmland ? Is there actual farming going on ? Can I meet Bill Gates in a farmers market selling his produce ?
He is probably leasing it to local farmers. Most farmers only own a portion of their land. I know of a few farmers who inherited land and got the courts to transfer that inheritance to the grandkids , but (living far away) because they didn't want to have more land in the farm even though they have been farming it for years. (this is also a transfer of wealth to the kids, but your accountant will explain in detail why is is bad to own too much land even if you have no kids)
And 45% of America is uninhabited
This must be an error because Bill Gates said he was going to give all of his wealth away.
If anyone wants to invest like the Gateseseses check out farmtogether.com
oh no, 5G trees.... we're doomed
koolk3ychain(1)
On the one hand, that's a lot of land. On the other, it's not really anything.