Acreages/Land... Full Retard?

[jazz]

If we fall into a barter system, the society would be in a pretty bad way. You wontbe riding into town with your bar of gold. It will be taken from you in a heartbeat. And in this circumstance, a bin full of grain will be worth more than anything.

[Klause]

Throughout history, land was fought over and won through battles, wars, and marriage


Buying land is a relatively recent development.


In the past hu dred years one could have made far more profit from buying and selling than from hanging onto and farming it.


Also, keep in mind in Canada we never really own land... Only tenure from the Queen.

The whole point of this post was to show how our land is overpriced compared to our southern neighbours in absolute terms (thus value in ounces of gold)



Y'all have never experienced hyperinflation. Gold is King because you can trade small portions in for daily currency and not loose your ass on the rest... Something you would with paper money.


Can't exactly trade in an acre of land for currency to buy groceries.

As farmers we gave commodities to use in those circumstances... If we can market them, and receive funds immediately...

Living in sask we all know grain doesn't move reliably...

[burnt]

An interesting thread, and one that demonstrates our penchant for linear thinking.

I sincerely hope that such thought patterns are rewarded with corresponding "linear' outcomes, because if they are, it will mean continued prosperity for those of us who are so fortunate to hold real estate.

One pitfall of such thinking is that it tends to focus on relatively short and culturally narrow periods of history - time and events that may not reflect many other factors that contribute to the current benefits that we have come to accept as natural and normal.

However, when we employ such a mindset, how much credit is given to the economic, philosophical spiritual and moral drivers that brought us to where we are? In other words, how has our Western history in its entirety contributed to where we are today? Because as we all must realize, if one sufficiently changes the basis for a particular paradigm, the paradigm itself will likely become unrecognizable or even untenable.

We have the benefit of observing other cultures that followed sharply contrasting philosophies and governance models. And the outcomes and lifestyles that they have are something that none of us would want. None of us, regardless of our station in life.

What would we find if we'd take the time to see if and how our founding principles have been shifting, and what the implications are for the future? No one can deny cause and effect. You sow canola, you don't get lentils.

We think things will continue here as we have always known them to be?

Others have thought the same, only to see their security disappear literally overnight, because of a massive shift in the underlying structures. It can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually to a point where the balance tips irrevocably, but the outcome is guaranteed.

Best wishes to everyone in the New Year.

[jamesb]

when I read of the history of man and civilization since the beginning of recorded time, the one thing that sticks out for me. The land owners, meaning the estates, kingdoms, fiefdoms, etc were the weathy ones, not the farmer themselves. Farmers have a history of being tenants, share croppers, indentured servitude, and slaves for the land owners. I have had Irish relatives that have a fixation on owning land, because they were unable to do so in their own country for so long. Any land I buy now and can cash flow can generate a living for my grandchildren should they chose to. Farmers have always been told by others that land they bought can never be paid for. Some do fall by the way side but lots absolutely do succeed and prosper. I readily admit that if my grandfather and father hadn't stepped out bought land in "good times and bad" this farm wouldn't be what it is today. I am trying to do the same that will benefit future generations.

[farmaholic]

I think this thread should all lead back to a question, "at current values how good of an investment is it if it can't pay for itself and has to be excessively subsidized with excess cash or paid for land's production"?

Some of the forces driving Sask land values, particularily Investors either on their own or through farming corps, may not(actually probably don't) care about it "paying for itself" or "making a living" on/with it. How do "regular" farmers compete with that mentality, yup...like the tread title stated, FULL RETARD"!!!!

[hobbyfrmr]

Most land but not all in this area is being purchased by buyers with many more resources than most had in the 80s such as thousands of acres of paid for land and those buyers seem to be willing to leverage their equity position to a certain degree. My first offer to purchase on 800 acres at 425/acre in 1981 was rejected by the vendor only to see the same land sell for 300/acre 8 years later as prices trended down. Today ,10 year money locked in at 4-4.5 % is still largely driving the market IMO. Pulse markets showing some life is also a factor here. Top quality dirt is still highly sought after here as values have slowed down some but still increaseing

Same thing around here. Leveraging “land for land” has been a successful strategy for exponential growth for at least a decade. Add the 200-400% increase in land values and there are some very well heeled farms. There is plenty of room to borrow even more money against the lands updated values.
The only black swan event I would guess at is the “clubroot effect”. If clubroot were to get established, canola rotations would be scaled back where a farmer would have to rely more on wheat and pulse acres to cash flow the farm operation.

[SWFarmer]

19 quarters near Edgeley just sold for $10 250 000. Quite a high price in my opinion.

[highwayman]

Most land but not all in this area is being purchased by buyers with many more resources than most had in the 80s such as thousands of acres of paid for land and those buyers seem to be willing to leverage their equity position to a certain degree. My first offer to purchase on 800 acres at 425/acre in 1981 was rejected by the vendor only to see the same land sell for 300/acre 8 years later as prices trended down. Today ,10 year money locked in at 4-4.5 % is still largely driving the market IMO. Pulse markets showing some life is also a factor here. Top quality dirt is still highly sought after here as values have slowed down some but still increaseing

[grassfarmer]

EU subsidies were really getting going in the 80's which prevented the blood letting there that occurred here in the 1980's.

You're partly right there. Subsidies got going well immediately post WW2 but farm profitability was good then also - the 1950s were the golden age for farm profitability in Britain. By the 80's subsidies were increasing but they were also providing about half the farm income. Subsidies have plateaued or maybe even declined slightly since but farms are more dependant on them. Some categories (like hill sheep farms) only 10-14% make a profit without subsidies. I think overall on all farm types it's only in the 40's % range that are profitable without subsidies on an average year.
Yet land prices continue to increase and they are mostly driving about in new tractors. Makes no sense to me.

[Klause]

EU subsidies were really getting going in the 80's which prevented the blood letting there that occurred here in the 1980's. This is one reason why Sk was hit harder than AB. More subsidies in AB in those days like the tripartite program for livestock. One thing different this time is that in the mid eighties and later, there was a lot of good off farm jobs available especially in central Canada, which resulted in there being no interest in farm ground. Today off farm opportunities do not exist so here won't be the exodus from the farm by milllenials this crisis but a hanging on to the bitter end.

I have a few friends who are mechanics, machinists, and electrical engineers plus farm. They are really questioning why farm...

Lots of good opportunity. Today, it's just not in central Canada it's in the US, Azerbaijan, and Brazil.


Companies are global and they take their employees wherever needed.