|
Colby, Kansas | If the others are just as efficient, why aren't they larger. They must be putting their earnings somewhere else then, and thats their business decision to make. Maybe that shows the subsidies aren't that great after all. Why should subsidies and conservation payments not be dealt with on a per acre basis. Relatively speaking I don't think it gives the larger operator any more leverage as his other financial commitments are larger as well. The larger operator has more equity, more investment, more assets at risk why shouldn't his compensation be commensurate. I'm not sure what everyone thinks of when they read the word efficiency, but for me that means output/input, or in a financial sense, ROI or profitability. So why do people assume that larger operations are more efficient, because typically they are! Tremendous amounts of work/research point to that. If you believe that academia is full of crap, thats fine but its hard to ignore the over 100 years of obvious data that support that (trendline of average farm size). If this wasn't the case then quarter-section homesteads would still be viable.
Best Regards,
Lucas | |
|
land rent
