Why are billionaires buy up lands?

[White pawn]

Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmlands in the United States with about 275,000 acres across almost 20 states

Anders Hulsh Pulverson owns more than 220,000 acres in Scotland at the same time the Crown estate which controls about 615,000.

Shouldn't the poor and average people in the society be bothered?

[Charles-Tim]

The poor to be bothered of what? There are still many lands in the world far beyond that. The rich people that you are referring to will have the legal documents of the lands. And if they use the land for farming, it will create jobs among the people and increase employment. It is a very good thing than doing nothing and making the land stay idle without using it for farming.

[decodx]

<...>
Shouldn't the poor and average people in the society be bothered?

They probably should. But what's your suggestion? 

The logic is simple: If you don't own land, you're paying rent to someone who does. The only solution is to keep your land if you own it, or buy some if you can.

[Merit.s]

Why will the poor be bothered when there are other things they need to be bothered of which is how to increase their income. Can you go and buy a Ferrari when you don't have any funds on you.

Land is a good asset and if it's in a good location, it will increase in value overtime. This is why the rich are getting wealthy because they put their money into assets that will generate passive income for them. A poor man can barely take care of his financial needs because he is broke.

[Mhizlove]

The poor to be bothered of what? There are still many lands in the world far beyond that. The rich people that you are referring to will have the legal documents of the lands. And if they use the land for farming, it will create jobs among the people and increase employment. It is a very good thing than doing nothing and making the land stay idle without using it for farming.

I agree with you, because if everyone owns land, then there will be no means of income for both the poor and rich people . So why should ordinary people or the poor be bothered? Because the same land owned by the rich will still serve both rich and ordinary people at the end of the day. The best thing or outcome is that both parties will benefit from it together.

[Xal0lex]

Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmlands in the United States with about 275,000 acres across almost 20 states

Anders Hulsh Pulverson owns more than 220,000 acres in Scotland at the same time the Crown estate which controls about 615,000.

Could you share a link to where you got this information?

[Dunamisx]

Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmlands in the United States with about 275,000 acres across almost 20 states

Anders Hulsh Pulverson owns more than 220,000 acres in Scotland at the same time the Crown estate which controls about 615,000.

Shouldn't the poor and average people in the society be bothered?

The rich have a brother understanding of how to get positioned for the future at a very good edge, they are not just buying Land because they don't know what to use their money for, but land is a profitable asset that will never diminish over time than to give you higher return, another reason to why they consider buying Land is to serve as a reserve for them to make an establishment in the future, a poor man will not reason in some ways like this because of his current condition except if he is willing to think beyond his predicament as an obstacle.

[Ucy]

Well that's the basic issue with the current model — it potentially allows wealthy individual to buy up islands, and even countries for selfish interest.

 There should be a limit to the private ownership otherwise they could become wealthy enough to acquire portion of the seas, oceans, sky, etc and you pay rent to use them.
But for business purposes and very large lands   the lands should remain lands for the collective while lease (and rent) should be used and be in renewal basis - a long lease for the very wealthy and very large lands can be harmful to the collective .



It's basically thesame issue with centralized/decentralized ownership and usage. Everyone can be part owner, or a single person can own/control the whole thing and rent it out to others. Decentralized  ownership works really well with the right rules/standards, but I have noticed how the wealthy and their promoters can suppress it, for example, I remember it worked OK here to the extent of the public collectively building Ethereum (even Bitcoin) using ICO or something like that. But they tried to suppress thesame ICO via demonization and the overwhelming of the space with fakes, to the extent that many got fed up with the idea. That was basically them trying hard to kill community participation and bringing in private funders/owners of projects.
By the way, it's easier for the system to control the individual than the collective which is part of the reason it favors it.

So, you should be more concerned about wealthy individuals suppressing collective ownership than allowing things to work or happen naturally

[noorman0]

It's not just about owning the land, but how it will be managed. In my country, a lot of land is privately controlled but has absolute usage restrictions, such as if it is green land then the owner is prohibited from using it to build buildings. I think the government will entrust anyone with very large land if it can accommodate basic national needs.

[Btcdeybodi]

Is this even supposed to be a question? And why should the poor be bothered, were their lands hijacked? You have forgotten that as a billionaire they will need lands for future purposes where they will want to build an investment. Perhaps, land is also a good asset, they can decide to sell some of the lands in the future and use the money for an investment and their wealth continues to grow. Instead of building many unproductive houses, it is better to buy lands because it appreciates in value and doesn't need any maintenance.

What the poor need to be concerned about is how they can come out of poverty and take care of themselves and their families, not being concerned about those buying multiple lands. If you have money you can buy lands in any location you wish and no one will stip you inasmuch as you have the legal documents to claim ownership of them.

[programmer3666]

It is not just about farming. Land is a safe bet. It does not disappear, it does not crash like the stocks and as time goes on, it almost always goes up in value. For billionaires it is about protecting their already acquired wealth more than anything else. But where it eventually become a problem is when a handful of people control that much land it definitely pushes the prices up and makes it harder for regular people to buy property. It is not illegal, but it does not sit or feel right either. Land can surely give them power over things like housing, agriculture activity like food production,  even over communities as well because they are not just blindly buying some ground with dirt, they are in some way buying influence. And when the rich control the land, the rest of us end up paying more for everything. If you look at it from an angle of a family saving for years to buy a small home and a billionaire buys thousands of acres like it is nothing, then that is not just business but a good reminder of how wide the gap between the wealthy and the common struggling to earn a living really is.

[AVE5]

Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmlands in the United States with about 275,000 acres across almost 20 states

Anders Hulsh Pulverson owns more than 220,000 acres in Scotland at the same time the Crown estate which controls about 615,000.

Shouldn't the poor and average people in the society be bothered?

This sounds funny some bits because the thought is coming from a vision that's scared about the future when you realizes that you're still in the lower or lowest socioeconomic working class while there're those like the topmost rich investor's whose wealth is beyond measures.
Lol, the felling of arriving late that before you grows to the affordability or own a land in a desirable location, there MIGHT be noorw land to buy by then.
Haha, I don't know about the extreme of the world, but for now and in the longest time, I think there's still going to be lands for anyone that can afford it be available.
Except you've phobia to buy the land elsewhere that MAY probably had not been your desired place.

[BIT-BENDER]

Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmlands in the United States with about 275,000 acres across almost 20 states

Anders Hulsh Pulverson owns more than 220,000 acres in Scotland at the same time the Crown estate which controls about 615,000.

Shouldn't the poor and average people in the society be bothered?

I guess you are bothered and trying to recruit more people to be bothered just like you but what are you bothered about? Everything seems to have a price these days.
The rich don't know what to do with their wealth again and investing in land is a good business and they have they resources to by as much land as they want.
I think it's not illegal to buy lands that are available to be bought and these billionaires aren't doing anything wrong, but rather than be bothered and do nothing why no praise those billionaires who are actually buying lands with lots of trees and are preventing them from being cut down, that's a good deed I think deserves more publicity.