undefined | Better HN

0 pointsquickthrowman3d ago0 comments

> Like if destroying the trees to grow something else was more profitable than continuing to sell the produce then why does it require a government subsidy?

Del Monte didn’t grow peaches, they contracted with farmers (long term, 20 year contracts) who grew peaches and then Del Monte canned the peaches. Del Monte was purchased with an LBO that loaded their books with debt.

Del Monte blew up and left farmers holding the bag. Paying the farmers to convert their land to grow something else prevents fire sales of the existing land.

Considering the market that Del Monte made for canned peaches, someone was going to grow peaches for them. The farmers may have mismanaged their risk, but I’m fine with compensating farmers that end up with worthless trees because of a leveraged buyout. If these farmers were forced to sell their land, some giant ag business would end up with the land.

0 comments

AnthonyMouse3d ago

> Paying the farmers to convert their land to grow something else prevents fire sales of the existing land.

There is no fire sale of land. There is enormous demand for land, especially productive agricultural land which is essentially traded as a fungible commodity.

> The farmers may have mismanaged their risk, but I’m fine with compensating farmers that end up with worthless trees because of a leveraged buyout.

Even then, why are you paying them to destroy productive trees instead of e.g. buying their peaches and donating them to food pantries or stocking the cafeterias at government facilities?

> If these farmers were forced to sell their land, some giant ag business would end up with the land.

That's just cynical speculation. If they sell the land it goes to anyone who wants to buy it. You're also assuming that the ones getting the money aren't already some giant ag business.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse