youse might also look at:

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/please-dont-feed-the-animals/

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/charity-and-the-real-root-of-poverty/

I levitated, regained control, and pointed out that municipal governments were the direct cause of the change. As said above,

“The assessor would point out the housing subdivision going up a mile or two away and say, “Nope, you’re gonna subdivide. Then he would raise the tax rate.

Given the new tax, the farmer could not afford to farm, so he subdivided the land.”

Being politicians, they were slow to understand, but I finally got it through to them. Saved the cost of the seminar, anyway, as it was never held. Didn’t change municipal tax appraisals, though.

I went through that deal. I know first hand. My grandfather worked two fulltime jobs, 1937-1939 and paid cash for 150 acres outside Austin. $24 per acre. By the early 1970s, the school taxes were $35 per acre per year. The appraised value was around $6,000/acre. Well, you can make a helluva lot more money raising condos than cows. Messes up the deer hunting, though…

‘Rat

yes you are right pretty much a manufactured farm crisis in the 80s. Earl Butz was a loudmouth idiot. We were going to feed the world. I remember everyone being all excited buying huge equipment, land etc etc. Then Jimmy Carter put an embargo on grain sales to the soviets. Which caused pretty much every country to take a long hard look at using the USA as their only source of food. The Japanese started investing in South American Ag big time after that. Realizing that we could not be trusted. All the banks were lending out based on net worth, no one cared about cash flow. Which when you get down to it was the cause of the current economic crisis. Lending people money for homes based on the fact that those homes were always going up in value. After the farm crisis ag banks were strictly cash flow lenders. Which is probably a big reason why the current crisis has not had much effect on the ag sector.

yes thats a bit different situation than what we have in Illinois. Farmers prayed that a road or subdivision got their land. Typically the developers would 1031 and the farmer would end up with 3 times the land than he started out with. In fact its a problem as development is driving the price of farm ground up all over Illinois. The best thing that can happen to a farmer is if a developer wants his land. That farmer can now actually afford to farm. Now of course this is corn country and we are not growing the same type of things they grow in california, so its a different situation.

Fremont used to be composed of many farms. The county assessor would come by and say, “This area is zoned for housing development. We are going to up your tax rate accordingly.” The farmer would protest and say, “My grandfather farmed this land, my father farmed this land, I am farming this land, and it is expected my son will farm this land. This is farmland.”

The assessor would point out the housing subdivision going up a mile or two away and say, “Nope, you’re gonna subdivide. Then he would raise the tax rate.

Given the new tax, the farmer could not afford to farm, so he subdivided the land. The tax assessor would then say, “See, I knew you were gonna subdivide.” and proceed to the next farm.

Fremont is now all housing.

always,
tony

Still, “Get big!” was government advice, supported by the banksters. Fast forward and government advice encouraged buying over-priced houses via banksters making weird-format government-induced loans. Trouble is, there ain’t nobody doing HomeAid.

Suffice that my trust in government is between Slim and None, and Slim left town.

1. re large farms

I find it “interesting” that (much like the tobacco farmers that they subsidize, then tax the product because it is harmful) the government wants “big farms” in order for efficiency, but continues to subsidize “small family farms”. I forget what the acreage is to be considered “small” in order to qualify for subsidies but the American farmer, being quite practical, simply formed several corporations, broke up his holdings and “leased them” to the various corporations, then partook of the subsidies. (P’haps I’ll send Mike a copy of a paper I wrote on subsidies.)

2. Re: Faith in gubbermint

In terms of “infinite faith” in the gubbermint, I’m reminded of a phrase from my youth. (YES, I was young once.)

STAY LOOSE

always,
tony