Converting to a sustainable way of life will mean MASSIVE disruptions, with tens of millions of people not having an income for varying, mostly non-trivial, periods of time. Yet they have to live meanwhile, which means that they have to be maintained by the rest of us. Part of that maintenance can simply be done on paper because the expenses involved are on some level unreal.

But food isn't. Food is real, as Mike has often pointed out.

If we socialise healthcare, that means a number of expenses (e.g. malpractice insurance) go away for doctors, and the amount of money they can bring in will be limited.

Would farmers be willing to go for something similar?

Right now, family farmers go into debt (correct me if I'm wrong on this, Mike...it's been 50 years since my step-aunt gave me lessons in farm economics) each year to buy seed and fertiliser, run the tractor, pay for repairs and vet bills, pay hands for harvesting, etc. The idea is that they'll recoup when they sell the crop. But if the weather is bad, then there's no crop and they're screwed. Or if the crop is too big because the weather was great, or there are too many farmers raising the same crop, then the market gets glutted and they're screwed. If that happens more than a couple of years running, the debt burden becomes unbearable and unless one or more family members can get a really good tide-over job in town, they have to sell up and quit farming. So life is a constant see-saw between impending disaster and temporary reprieve.

What if farmers were guaranteed a floor-plus-piece price for their crops no matter how bumper, plus public insurance against a bad year? In other words, they're (e.g.) guaranteed their cropping expenses plus social security, so even if it's a disaster year they don't go into the hole. But if it's a good or wonderful year, they ship and get paid for all they can raise. Not paid much, but all gravy.

How many would go for that?

Converting to a sustainable way of life will mean MASSIVE disruptions, with tens of millions of people not having an income for varying, mostly non-trivial, periods of time. Yet they have to live meanwhile, which means that they have to be maintained by the rest of us. Part of that maintenance can simply be done on paper because the expenses involved are on some level unreal.

But food isn't. Food is real, as Mike has often pointed out.

If we socialise healthcare, that means a number of expenses (e.g. malpractice insurance) go away for doctors, and the amount of money they can bring in will be limited.

Would farmers be willing to go for something similar?

Right now, family farmers go into debt (correct me if I'm wrong on this, Mike...it's been 50 years since my step-aunt gave me lessons in farm economics) each year to buy seed and fertiliser, run the tractor, pay for repairs and vet bills, pay hands for harvesting, etc. The idea is that they'll recoup when they sell the crop. But if the weather is bad, then there's no crop and they're screwed. Or if the crop is too big because the weather was great, or there are too many farmers raising the same crop, then the market gets glutted and they're screwed. If that happens more than a couple of years running, the debt burden becomes unbearable and unless one or more family members can get a really good tide-over job in town, they have to sell up and quit farming. So life is a constant see-saw between impending disaster and temporary reprieve.

What if farmers were guaranteed a floor-plus-piece price for their crops no matter how bumper, plus public insurance against a bad year? In other words, they're (e.g.) guaranteed their cropping expenses plus social security, so even if it's a disaster year they don't go into the hole. But if it's a good or wonderful year, they ship and get paid for all they can raise. Not paid much, but all gravy.

How many would go for that?
All of them.

It is already that way, except that it keeps getting eroded away year after year. What you are describing is the New Deal program for agriculture. The corporations keep corrupting and distorting the system.

Farming is not, nor should it be open market free enterprise. It is not unusual to have a million or more in debt, a million or more in expenses per year, enormous liabilities and risks and massive compliance requirements with various government agencies and yet have a $20,000 income after all of that. The only thing free enterprise about farming is the risk. No other business has a similar burden to reward ratio - not even close. No one goes into farming as a business opportunity. You have to be dedicated to other things for it to be appealing.