> An economist walks by a twenty dollar bill on the sidewalk but decides not to pick it up, because if it were really there someone would have picked it up already

I think many farmers do what has worked for the last X decades; often copying what their forebears do with small adjustments.

You are not a farmer and have a typical ignorant view of what it takes in knowledge and management to farm.

You can't copy/paste in farming to get ahead, or be really likeable but have no actual output or contribution.

that's a joke based on a particular economic theory, by humor the flaws in the theory are indicated, I'm pretty sure every economist walking by 20 bucks on the sidewalk will pick it up.

I don't think farmers have any particular theory that land growing grass cannot grow anything else or their parents would already have done that. So the analogy is really stretched thin.

It could be rewilded, instead of being used by humans directly. Biodiversity badly needs that.

About 15% is slåtter and grazeland. Slåtter might include some grazing, but the vast majority of things growing there won't be eaten. I think it is pretty safe to say that the vast majority of the grass feed land is suitable for human crops since "vall" is most often used in rotational crop systems.

We CAN grow such crops in Sweden, at least in the southern parts. I lived next to a quinoa field with comparatively high yields. And we have been growing white beans for years. Pre pandemic there were trials with soybeans on Öland and in Skåne with promising results.

> Now the idiotic argument that is often heard is "well, if we didn't grow grass we could grow something humans want, like.. soybeans".

Or we could let the wild take over that land.