On my high school football team was a large, slow defensive guard who sat on the bench most of the time while a smaller, more agile fellow enjoyed the action. In response to town-folk criticism about his personnel deployment, my coach responded: "I'd rather get there with a little than not get there with a lot." I will try to follow that prescription by focusing on one point which appeared in all three of these interesting papers. This lack of attention to the many other points in the papers should not be construed as agreement or disagreement, only a lack of time and space to respond. Klinefelter, Penson, and Fraser began their paper with a review of inflation-causing factors and lender responses to greater and more uncertain inflation, such as shorter-term loans and variable or renegotiable interest rates. The best example of this response to uncertain inflation has been the Farm Credit System's adoption of variable interest rates as early as the late 1960s. It should be evident that adopting variable interest rates and renegotiable rates result in all borrowers paying a more nearly equal rate. Moreover, if cost to borrowers is based on a weighted cost of funds obtained by the lenders, such as is the case with the Farm Credit System, interest rates will respond rather sluggishly to inflationary (deflationary) pressures. This suggests that, as all three papers appear to agree, inflation has differing impacts over time on input and output prices received by farmers. I will return to the implication of this point later. Lins and Duncan discuss more explicitly the point made earlier. Inflation does not affect all prices equally, although for the unfortunate farmers, prices paid appear to respond more to upward pressures than prices received. But lacking from Lins' table of correlations was the correlation with interest rates. If interest rates