384
It Will Be an Election Unlike Any We’ve Lived Through. Are the Democrats Prepared?
(newrepublic.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
384 points (91.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2260 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No on said to buy a farm. Use what's available to you and ammend the soil, there are plenty of organic addatives that are free, low cost, or byproducts. Also make you own compost to continually add neutrients, aka grow food like a farmer not a gardener.
The point is to know how to do it cyclically, with little if any input other than what you create. Its an investment in divesting from society, and a lesson in sufficience that you may need once the fact that China and Bill Gates own the most farmland in America becomes a more pressing issue.
The guns are there because for any situation where food become that valuable, productive land anywhere becomes a target. Weather its pests, deers, boars, or humans.
A quarter acre of land in my neighborhood runs for $300k. There is nothing I can do to that soil that's going to justify a $300k upfront investment in urban agriculture. Nevermind what this prepper nonsense is going to accomplish in the event the End of The World isn't happening within the next five years.
The cool thing about farmland is that its only really useful if its being worked. And the realization that we're ultimately going to have to come to terms with is that the folks who "own" the land are very far removed from the folks who give the land value.
At the same time, subsistence farming isn't a particularly productive lifestyle in a post-industrial world. So telling everyone to run out to Iowa and become soybean farmers is not good financial advice.
I find it funny that you discount learning to grow crops as something that doesn't help and can only be done on a $300k piece of land but also acknowledge the land alone isn't what gives it value. Yes that's why it's important to know how to grow food. Which is apparently only useful to know if the world ends in the next five years according to you.
It seems like you're deliberately interpreting eveything I say in a way you can argue against it instead of the way I wrote it. Never told people to move, never told them to buy a farm, never told them to buy land but you argue against all those things as if my points hinges on them. What I said was learn to grow crops, not simply a vegetable garden that relies on annual trips to buy more miracle grown. That doesn't mean you need a farm.
Also interestingly enough if we check the CPI food items are rising faster than most other costs. Also sustainable and urban agribusiness demand is growing. Posturing yourself to understand and take advantage of that is the opposite of a financial mistake.
You don't need to know a ton about agricultural science to understand concepts like "units per sqft of productivity". In fact, these are more business-minded questions that someone interested in investing in farmland might ask, particularly if they were sold on some modernist "Vertical Farming" application of the science and wanted to sink $300k into a quarter acre with the hopes that it could be maximally productive.
But then that's where you run into serious problems. Understanding the agriculture at a professional level is very different from understanding it abstractly from the financial perspective. Suggesting that people just get a professional education in both things becomes even more untenable than the original "buy land and make it agriculturally productive" pitch originally sounds.
Because the underlying energy, fertilizer, and water costs are rising faster than most other costs. So the real brain-buster move is to invest in these things, rather than trying to compete with Tyson in raising chickens.
Its always growing because its routinely failing. The boom-bust cycle of agriculture technology companies tracks with the rest of the tech sector. And, like the tech sector, you're far better off investing in Cargill or Archer Daniels than going long on Eden Green Technology.