Modern Day Plantations?

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

I don't blame the people for being angry. I think this bears a lot closer of a look.

He is not the only member of the elite buying up farm land. He is just the one they place in the spotlight, to keep us distracted.

Back during the "Great Depression", lots of families lost their family farms. There is a lot of truth in "He who controls the food, controls the world."

I am sure no one believes that Bill Gates is a farmer. So that means he is either meaning to become the Lord of his fiefdoms, or the master owner of his plantations.

They are buying up our water rights and our land. Everybody is so focused, deliberately I might add, on "My body, my choice", they are not looking at what other rights the States have.

While we are fighting over abortion issues that really affect a truly small number of American citizens, we are not watching as the States are allowing the purchase of the land and water rights from right under our feet.

We can look to the Native Americans to see how it was done before, and how that ended.

North Dakota’s state attorney general’s office approved Bill Gates’ recent purchase of 2,100 acres of farmland. The attorney general’s officeII scrutinized the initial investment based on the state’s barring of corporations and limited liability companies from purchasing farmland. 
In the state’s original letter to Gates, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley wrote, “Our office needs to confirm how your company uses this land and whether it meets any of the statutory exceptions, such as the business purposes exception.”
Photo by Frederic Legrand – COMEO, Shutterstock
U.S. land prices have been soaring, but an aging demographic of farmers may spell opportunity for young and would-be farmers. However, a select few have been able to meet new prices without hesitation. Among these select few is Bill Gates’ Red River Trust, which now owns nearly 270,000 acres of land across the country. Almost 90 percent of this land is farmland, with smaller transitional and recreational area holdings. In total, the trust owns $13.5 million in farm acres.
Although more than 97 percent of American farms are owned by families, the remaining is owned by corporations. Gates is not only the fourth richest man on the planet; he is now the largest private owner of American farmland, according to The Land Report, leaping ahead of Ted Turner by about 70,000 acres.
Photo by GLF Media, Shutterstock
The farmland that Gates owns is located in 19 states. However, the land held only amasses 1 percent of the total acres of farmland in the United States. Gates is also number 49 on a list of individuals, families, and businesses who own farmland in the states.
What does a technology pioneer want with agriculture? The future is in agri-tech, and Gates believes that he is too. The billionaire launched Gates Ag One through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The nonprofit organization will help to provide access to technologies that will maximize yields and fight climate change in developing countries.
However, since the 2021 report showing how large of a landowner Gates is, many farmers have spoken up in blog posts and on social media uneasy — and in some cases, upset — about Gates’ growing role in the industry. The Land Report’s research insinuates the land is held directly by Gates and also by third party entities, such as Cascade Investments and Red River Trust, that is run by Gates’ investors.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Now I don't want anyone to think that they are not thinking about us and that they are not acting in our best interest.

They believe that making it impossible to buy or sell without going through their practices, which are only meant to provide for us fair and equally, is the right thing to do. Therefore we will own nothing and be happy.

I found this little gem in one of the posts at the other site. I am posting the whole thing because it was tricky for me to get to, because it was 404'd, and my computer was not cooperating, but the url may work for you. 


The Benefits of World Hunger

The Benefits of World Hunger
About the author George Kent
George Kent is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He works on human rights, international relations, peace, development and environmental issues, with a special focus on nutrition and children. He has written several books, the latest is Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.


We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world's economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying "Will Work for Food". Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?

More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.

The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on "Brazil's ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom".1 While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?

Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.

The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world,2 including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.

Notes 1 Tom Phillipps, "Brazil's ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom". The Guardian. Online, 9 March 2007.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2030144,00.html

2 Free the Slaves. Online, 2007. http://www.freetheslaves.net/

https://archive.ph/KbbGD

I guess what they are saying is, when all you have is lemons, make lemonade.

Wait! Where is the water?

[Ninurta]

That's a good argument in favor of creating local economies, such as swap meets and farmer's markets. If you're gonna work the land anyhow, might as well keep the increase as close to home as possible, and cut out the fat cats - they have enough land, they can work it their damned selves.

Country folks can survive. all the resources are out here. Billy Boy buying up farmland, and other factory farms, are most essential to feed city-dwellers, who do not have the resources to feed themselves.

Let 'em starve if Billy Boy ain't willing to work his own patch. We have other fish to fry out here in the hinterlands.

270,000 acres is just under 422 square miles. if it was all in one place instead of spread out, it would be  square 20 1/2 miles on a side. He ought to have enough land to pop out a corn patch if he hops to it and works it off.

Either way, we can take care of ourselves out here in the boonies. Leave the rest alone so the dead can bury the dead.

.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

That's a good argument in favor of creating local economies, such as swap meets and farmer's markets. If you're gonna work the land anyhow, might as well keep the increase as close to home as possible, and cut out the fat cats - they have enough land, they can work it their damned selves.

Country folks can survive. all the resources are out here. Billy Boy buying up farmland, and other factory farms, are most essential to feed city-dwellers, who do not have the resources to feed themselves.

Let 'em starve if Billy Boy ain't willing to work his own patch. We have other fish to fry out here in the hinterlands.

270,000 acres is just under 422 square miles. if it was all in one place instead of spread out, it would be  square 20 1/2 miles on a side. He ought to have enough land to pop out a corn patch if he hops to it and works it off.

Either way, we can take care of ourselves out here in the boonies. Leave the rest alone so the dead can bury the dead.

.

Without a doubt. All arrows are pointing in one direction. Prepare for survival. Creating local economies, such as swap meets and farmer's markets is front and center, and not very hard to do.

Build it. They will come.

[ABNARTY]

The OP mentioned the price of agricultural acreage. 

I cannot speak about everywhere, but I can where I am located. 

Prices are insane. Nuts. No regular farmer will pay what is being asked for some parcels right now. They will never make any money on that investment. 

It doesn't surprise me wealthy entities are purchasing it. They can afford it and most likely are hedging for something down the road. It is just another place to store wealth right now.  

It makes sense ND has some laws in place to protect the purchasing power of small farmers. But if those laws do not get enforced?

[MalevolentTwitch]

 
It doesn't surprise me wealthy entities are purchasing it. They can afford it and most likely are hedging for something down the road. It is just another place to store wealth right now.  

I agree to an extent. Land investment has always been solid bet in the past. In contrast to the stock market, land is a finite resource. As such, it typically maintains decent value even accounting for runaway inflation.

That being said, I think there's more to it than hedging against a market failure or expanding a portfolio. If we expand on the concept that the current economic system is failing and has been for some time, and it stands to reason that those that "have" are loathe to just give it away... Then it is not outside a logical conclusion that the "Ominous They" will do anything to maintain the current balance of economic power.

To that end, it's becoming commonplace in my area that when farmland gets put on the market, the land itself is already being worked by farmers that don't actually own the property. They are just leasing it from the current owners... Almost like a form of modern day feudalism.

I personally believe that these land grabs coinciding with the recent trend of storage and production facility fires, fertilizer shortages, shipping issues, etc... is far too "coincidental" to ignore. If those that have control of not only the land but also the supply and can charge farmers that work the land... How can they lose?

Just a theory though.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

 
It doesn't surprise me wealthy entities are purchasing it. They can afford it and most likely are hedging for something down the road. It is just another place to store wealth right now.  

I agree to an extent. Land investment has always been solid bet in the past. In contrast to the stock market, land is a finite resource. As such, it typically maintains decent value even accounting for runaway inflation.

That being said, I think there's more to it than hedging against a market failure or expanding a portfolio. If we expand on the concept that the current economic system is failing and has been for some time, and it stands to reason that those that "have" are loathe to just give it away... Then it is not outside a logical conclusion that the "Ominous They" will do anything to maintain the current balance of economic power.

To that end, it's becoming commonplace in my area that when farmland gets put on the market, the land itself is already being worked by farmers that don't actually own the property. They are just leasing it from the current owners... Almost like a form of modern day feudalism.

I personally believe that these land grabs coinciding with the recent trend of storage and production facility fires, fertilizer shortages, shipping issues, etc... is far too "coincidental" to ignore. If those that have control of not only the land but also the supply and can charge farmers that work the land... How can they lose?

Just a theory though.

Had me thinking the same thing. The great reset and the rise of the Feudal lords.

Now who will be King?

[MalevolentTwitch]

Had me thinking the same thing. The great reset and the rise of the Feudal lords.

Now who will be King?

Well, while we are on the topic of feudalism...

When we keep in mind the government model of taxing a business for doing business then taxing the employees for their pay then taxing the sale of food, goods, property, etc that the employees purchase with the income already taxed... THEN annually taxing individuals for owning the things that were taxed for purchasing AND taxing an individual's assets sitting in saving accounts and merely accruing interest because they aren't purchasing anything that can be taxed...

*pause to breathe*

THEN, if you don't pay all of those taxes, the government either collects those taxes by threat of force in the form of jail time, garnishes your wages while still taxing you for those wages, just straight up repossessing that which you've purchased, or shutting down your business... Do we actually own anything anyway or are we just leasing everything from the government?

If THAT is true, who then owns the government? As far as I'm concerned, corporations. More specifically, those that either own or run corporations. We already live in a feudalistic society... It just has a clever disguise these days.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Had me thinking the same thing. The great reset and the rise of the Feudal lords.

Now who will be King?

Well, while we are on the topic of feudalism...

When we keep in mind the government model of taxing a business for doing business then taxing the employees for their pay then taxing the sale of food, goods, property, etc that the employees purchase with the income already taxed... THEN annually taxing individuals for owning the things that were taxed for purchasing AND taxing an individual's assets sitting in saving accounts and merely accruing interest because they aren't purchasing anything that can be taxed...

*pause to breathe*

THEN, if you don't pay all of those taxes, the government either collects those taxes by threat of force in the form of jail time, garnishes your wages while still taxing you for those wages, just straight up repossessing that which you've purchased, or shutting down your business... Do we actually own anything anyway or are we just leasing everything from the government?

If THAT is true, who then owns the government? As far as I'm concerned, corporations. More specifically, those that either own or run corporations. We already live in a feudalistic society... It just has a clever disguise these days.

We had better never stop and take a good look at this world we live in, or the system that we live under. The scales just may fall off our eyes, and we may just start to see a glimpse of what is inside the Matrix. If that happens, we definitely will not be happy.

Is there a way out? Maybe the great reset is inevitable. Maybe the next time we will get it right. May hope spring eternal.

It is true, the worse lies, are the lies we tell ourselves.

[ABNARTY]

 
It doesn't surprise me wealthy entities are purchasing it. They can afford it and most likely are hedging for something down the road. It is just another place to store wealth right now.  

I agree to an extent. Land investment has always been solid bet in the past. In contrast to the stock market, land is a finite resource. As such, it typically maintains decent value even accounting for runaway inflation.

That being said, I think there's more to it than hedging against a market failure or expanding a portfolio. If we expand on the concept that the current economic system is failing and has been for some time, and it stands to reason that those that "have" are loathe to just give it away... Then it is not outside a logical conclusion that the "Ominous They" will do anything to maintain the current balance of economic power.

To that end, it's becoming commonplace in my area that when farmland gets put on the market, the land itself is already being worked by farmers that don't actually own the property. They are just leasing it from the current owners... Almost like a form of modern day feudalism.

I personally believe that these land grabs coinciding with the recent trend of storage and production facility fires, fertilizer shortages, shipping issues, etc... is far too "coincidental" to ignore. If those that have control of not only the land but also the supply and can charge farmers that work the land... How can they lose?

Just a theory though.

Great points. 

How about the land not only being a great place to store wealth in uncertain times, it also provides said owner with control of resources? A win-win.

Control the resources, you control the power structure moving forward. 

I have witnessed a lot of consolidation in just my lifetime too. A small farmer (especially dairy where I live) is a thing of the past. They cannot make it. Cash crops and supporting larger farms is where they make it for now anyway. It's almost become a skillset you can charge a labor rate for. But own the company? Nope.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Great points. 

How about the land not only being a great place to store wealth in uncertain times, it also provides said owner with control of resources? A win-win.

Control the resources, you control the power structure moving forward. 

I have witnessed a lot of consolidation in just my lifetime too. A small farmer (especially dairy where I live) is a thing of the past. They cannot make it. Cash crops and supporting larger farms is where they make it for now anyway. It's almost become a skillset you can charge a labor rate for. But own the company? Nope.

Like selling your soul to the devil.

No matter how great the deal seems when you first make it, there will come the time that you will regret it.

The pleasure is fleeting, the pain will last for generations.