tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post2298308323895441198..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-50839242449908613602009-10-30T08:53:28.614-06:002009-10-30T08:53:28.614-06:00Good point James Lee.
And you are correct John. ...Good point James Lee.<br /><br />And you are correct John. Good farmland is in finite supply and unless the geneticists can keep crop yield on pace with human population (or human population takes a downturn) there will always be a demand for productive land. Basic economics: increasing demand + fixed supply = pretty safe investment.<br /><br />But we must consider: as land rates continue to rise, who will benefit and who will suffer? Creditors (the rich) will certainly loan the money as, again, land is a safe bet and easy money off which to earn interest. The landowner will be able to charge market rate on rent. The producer will have to pay market rate so he will need to sell at a higher price to maintain a profit. The price of food will continue to track higher. Those individuals who dedicate a large percentage of their income toward food will lose (the poor). While land is a safe investment, it will likely lead to the same wealth disparities we have today. All signs point to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.<br /><br />We try so hard to “blame” someone or something for this phenomenon. This is free market capitalism. The folks who are smart and ambitious have identified ways to make their wealth work for them. The folks who are uneducated and unmotivated fail to take advantage of opportunities. Two catalysts have exacerbated these conditions: increased greed on the top end and increased reliance on entitlements on the bottom.<br /><br />While I do not mean to sound like a pessimist, ultimately this is going to go one of two ways: either 1.) we will continue our slide into socialism, or 2.) a type of “civil war” between the wealthy and the poor. As our government adds more entitlement programs and more people to the government payroll, I would guess the former will exist before the latter. After all, a dependant voter is a dependable voter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-42707709133038131012009-10-30T08:37:08.299-06:002009-10-30T08:37:08.299-06:00John:
A great deal of the source of income inequal...John:<br />A great deal of the source of income inequality arises from personal choices--first--those who are educated naturally tend to have higher income--they also tend to marry those with more education. On the other hand, a single parent household will obviously have a lower income. In short, for the government to "attack" income inequality by forced redistribution of income (tax policy) may be short sighted and counter productive in the long runJames Lee Adamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-73456568004791465192009-10-29T08:22:32.226-06:002009-10-29T08:22:32.226-06:00John, I certainly agree with your last comment, &q...John, I certainly agree with your last comment, "assets like farmland seem to be golden."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com