5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion • Hacker News Board

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#221

Post by nwenzel » Fri, Jun 08, 2012, 7:02 PM UTC

cdcox wrote: post #104

[deleted] wrote: post #71

[deleted]

As to your first argument, I don't think it's quite the same. This is like saying that when I buy a song I can freely resell it. Farmers aren't buying the crops and using it for personal use and giving it to friends for personal use. They are buying it and selling it on the open market. If I personally went and bought Monsanto seed and used it for my own plants the I ate/gave away and gave it to friends who all used…

Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers are aimed at farmers that did not buy Monsanto seed.

Monsanto says that because their seed and their plants are growing on a farmer's land, that farmer must have stolen the seed and is benefiting from stolen property. So they want a cut of the gain from the stolen property.

The farmers say that pollen goes where the wind blows it and plants and their DNA spread naturally. The farmers say that they did not intend to grow a Monsanto product but because the Monsanto products grow in greater densities and are more robust than naturally growing soy and other crops, the Monsanto products crowd out the farmer's naturally growing products.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#222

Post by omonra » Fri, Jun 08, 2012, 11:33 PM UTC

AgentConundrum wrote: post #207

omonra wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't quote anything from RT - it's as useful as quoting Gobbles. While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes anything quoted extremely suspect.

Good to know. I had no idea what it was, but it looked more legit than the OP. Wikipedia seemed to back up the idea that it was a proper source, so I linked it.

I don't think you read far enough in the article :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today#Allegations_of_pro...

It's pretty much a Putin propaganda piece. Don't be mislead by their use of western journalists - they can only parrot the party line or put forward own fringe conspiracy theories.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#223

Post by astrodust » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 3:06 AM UTC

crikli wrote: post #217

astrodust wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... other crops require additional multi-million, even multi-billion, dollar outlay of new equipment and infrastructure to get started. I think this is the problem with modern agriculture. It shouldn't be like that. If there's a definition of non-sustainable it's surely spelled out quite clearly right there.

Rule of thumb in the area where my family lives, Hamilton County in Nebraska, is that 1000 acres will be required to financially support a family of four. Land has sold within the last four years from $6K to $10k per acre. Therefore, using the low number, one family will need to be able to raise crops on $6,000,000 worth of land by owning or leasing the ground. We haven't gotten to equipment yet. Center pivots start…

This is perhaps what happens when your housing bubble has a knock-on effect on land values and those in turn drive up the cost of doing business for the farmer.

The equipment today is outlandishly expensive. While the equipment is well made, there's surely room for innovation. Just as we can apparently find ways to send things into space for a fraction of the conventional cost, there has to be a way to make a combine harvester, or something functionally equivalent, for less than a quarter million dollars.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#224

Post by peterwwillis » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 5:47 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #198

peterwwillis wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I was saying about the AK-47 is that it's overkill in terms of weapons designed for hunting deer. The AK is designed to work in the sand after being left in the desert for a year and shoot practically like new. The clip is (imho) overkill - you really need more than 5 rounds to take down a single buck? And like you mentioned, full-automatic is dumb for hunting (thought I might appreciate it if I suddenly discove…

you really need more than 5 rounds to take down a single buck? I have an SKS with 5 rounds in it. I don't need 5 to take down one, but it's not uncommon to fire two or three shots at once. It's nice to know that if you do that, there's still two or three left if the herd swings back around. Other than that, 5 rounds is the smallest magazine they make. Bolt-action is a great detriment when it comes to hunting.

Like in my original comment, i'm talking about the AK, not the SKS. I think more than 5 rounds in a clip is overkill for this application. Five is a fine number for the SKS. I can see using an SKS for hunting, but an AK-47? "LOOK OUT, ITS BAMBIE! FLIP IT TO FULL AUTO, CLETUS!" And really, I believe if you're going to use something like a gun which has a huge advantage over every other traditional human-vs-mammal hunting tool, you should be using bolt action at the very least. Be sportsmanlike, don't go for that semi-auto crap (which I used to use).

(p.s. you can use up to 10 rounds in an SKS with a stripper clip, but i'll assume nobody would do that for hunting)

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#225

Post by crikli » Sat, Jun 09, 2012, 2:53 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #223

crikli wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rule of thumb in the area where my family lives, Hamilton County in Nebraska, is that 1000 acres will be required to financially support a family of four. Land has sold within the last four years from $6K to $10k per acre. Therefore, using the low number, one family will need to be able to raise crops on $6,000,000 worth of land by owning or leasing the ground. We haven't gotten to equipment yet. Center pivots start…

This is perhaps what happens when your housing bubble has a knock-on effect on land values and those in turn drive up the cost of doing business for the farmer. The equipment today is outlandishly expensive. While the equipment is well made, there's surely room for innovation. Just as we can apparently find ways to send things into space for a fraction of the conventional cost, there has to be a way to make a combine…

If you can find a way to produce equipment that costs what you feel it should then a large market awaits you.