You're right, it's not an apples to apples comparison, just like running any business will yield more than straight investments.

But opportunity cost is a thing. No land equals no farm and no opportunity for that return.

If not farming, what kind of job can the would-be farmer get and how would they accrue enough capital for their return on T-bills + income to equal their farming income paying off the land? Also my calculations didn't consider that the land value would rise, which it almost assuredly would.

▲

skeezyboy 2 days ago | parent [-]

he could spend 90% on tbills, 10% on a small farm, and then each year take the 2.5% the tbills generate and buy more farm fields, working the farm as it grows, or something like that, a mix of finance and farming

	▲	dismalaf a day ago \| parent [-]
		If $1 million in cash means you can get a $4 million plot of land, spending 90% on T-bills means you have only $900k in bonds and a measly $400k farm (25% down). So you have 1/10th of the land and your bonds are yielding $22,500... What really happens is as you pay off equity on your land and equipment, you leverage that into buying more land and more equipment. Successful restaurateurs buy more restaurants, successful tech startups hire more devs and buy more servers, successful farmers buy more land. Actual (successful) business activity yields more than investments, which is why they reinvest in themselves over stock markets.