Land, Gold or Bitcoin: The Debate on Real Wealth

Land as a refuge: 220 m², ten hens and a spring

Can a 220-square-meter garden, ten hens and some fruit trees cover all nutritional and caloric needs of a person for a year? That is the calculation defended by part of the debate, which argues that true wealth lies in land and water, not in stocks, gold or bitcoin. The proposal includes concrete figures: 75 square meters of roof can collect 27,000 liters of water in a region as dry as Castilla y León, enough to drink, shower and clean the house throughout the entire year. The same surface, with solar thermal installation, would provide hot water and heating for five or six months a year.

The underlying thesis is that people have forgotten that wealth consists of lands and water, and that everything else are financial artifacts sold to make one believe they will get rich. The author of the proposal ensures he dedicates less than an hour a day to the garden and hens, combines this activity with conventional work, and that his country house is located in La Sarracena area, with 400 mm of annual precipitation. He pays about 40 euros for water every six months for drip irrigation and transports manure from a nearby dairy farm with wheelbarrows.

How much land is needed to feed a person?

The first sustancia ilegal in the narrative appears in the figure itself. Some argue that 220 square meters are insufficient and that the necessary surface approaches 2,250 square meters per person. The discrepancy is not minor: it multiplies the project extension by ten. Those who have had a garden all their lives say it bluntly: with 220 meters you cannot sustain a person and ten hens without adding anything else. Field experience points out that hens stop being profitable when the garden is abandoned and feed must be purchased, although they are kept out of habit and for egg quality.

Technical nuances also matter. Not plowing the soil is a practice defended by some: aerating the ground kills microbial life in the top layers and forces fertilization. Vegetation cover, however, protects against cold and heat and reduces problems with voles. Those applying this method ensure they were the only ones in the village with a good grape harvest after frosts and the only ones whose trees took hold at the first attempt. Neighbors went to see how they had achieved it.

The property problem: expropriation, occupation or fines

The second front of the debate is not agronomic, but legal. Land does not move. Gold, stocks and bitcoin do. But the response is immediate: they can also be expropriated, and it would not be the first time. Legal certainty is the variable that decides whether one asset is preferable over another, and there is no consensus here.

Some recall that land consolidation changed plots with fruit trees into rectangles without trees. Others point to regulatory pressure on backyard chickens in country houses, inspections by Hacienda (Spanish Tax Agency) and Labor authorities, and occupation or expropriation to install solar farms. The conclusion of this current is that no tangible asset is safe if the legal framework changes.

Bill Gates and gold: those who already knew

The reference running through the debate is Bill Gates, pointed out as the largest owner of agricultural land in the United States. The data is used as confirmation of the thesis: those who are already rich buy land. The ironic response is that Gates knows what he is talking about because he has been doing it for years.

Historical parallelism also appears: formerly people were rich because they owned land and houses, and only when they were already rich did they buy gold and precious metals. The objection is that today agriculture is a strategic sector and major operators play with that position. Land rises with inflation, but it also concentrates problems: thefts, lack of time, expenses and bureaucracy.

City, village and local boss: the human factor

The experience of someone living in a village of ten inhabitants adds an element that does not appear in balance sheets: the local cacique (powerful local figure). Having the survival plan in the same place where a councilor with power rules can turn independence into a sentence. The recommendation is not to depend on a single place or a single person.

The other side is the city. Those defending the countryside compare it with a 40-square-meter apartment in a dense neighborhood. Those defending the city respond that 99.99% of people do not want or cannot live like that, and that the majority would be unhappy after leaving behind comforts. Land is a bad asset for speculation, except for urban development windfalls.

The closure: one hour a day and a shotgun

The debate does not close. Some speak of dividends, gold and bitcoin as mobile refuges. Others respond that money will remain devalued and that food independence brings independence in decision-making. And in the middle, the practical warning: without the capacity to defend the terrain, the garden only gives headaches. In the end, the most liquid wealth remains that which can be put in a suitcase and the most solid that which cannot be moved. Each chooses their own slavery.