[Riguad87]

Crazy idea: if I wrote software that consistently increases land yield then it is conceivable that some farmer somewhere might be OK with paying me via a commission in land for my personal use? I figured that's impractical individually but for a like minded group of programmers determined to quit the urban economy and potentially springboard into more directly commercial enterprise thereafter? I'm thinking about how so many of the most talented people I know are never going to be able to accumulate capital in property or cfanyhow and sso the most naturally entrepreneurial (to my mind) segment of the economy is neutered and boy this must suit the big name publishers, but it's the potential of the experience and the reversibility of the deal, providing a financial default exit is available in need. I'm still young enough to have such ideas too romantically but old enough to be too familiar with the tax planning and politics and Land law and inherent compliance nuances (because in England Chitty,as in Chitty On Contract, if you peruse the early editions on the archive, began to document the perversity of the English land laws, which I have oft surmised as "two chicken a goat and three hens: rent bill will come again and again ; three hens, a goat and two chicken, landlord can't afford a pot to...

[gumby]

Regulation, particularly tax law, is the super critical tail that wags many of farmers' actions. It basically makes sense: the economics of farming, on its own, are terrible, and you'd like to have a steady diversity of farmers even if, say, the transport system shuts down (9/11? coronavirus paranoia?).*

So if your idea doesn't interlock with the existing tax code forget it. But if it can, sure.

* ag consolidation has followed the same permissive path that other industries have over the last 40 years thanks to supine antitrust regulators. And that consolidation has lead to modern sharecropping which I think is bad all around. But my point stands.