10 ms·

Colorado becomes first to pass ‘right to repair’ for farmers

437 points by hubraumhugo 4y ago

fnordian_slip 4y ago
I was mildly interested in the article based on the title, because the right to repair is imho necessary in many areas of life. But I am most definitely not interested enough to do the trivial work to bypass the " This content is not available in your country/region." message. If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.
- Clubber 4y ago
  It's not that important for the EU. The summary is John Deere would put chips in their tractors that were aware if you replaced a part. If you replaced that part, the tractor would brick until you took it to the dealership to update the computer.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  You can read it here: https://archive.ph/elD6M https://archive.ph/elD6M
- _a9 4y ago
  Like another commenter mentioned, using archive.today bypasses most paywalls and blocks. A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here [0]: https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-becomes-1st-to-pass-right-to-repair-for-farmers/ https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-bec...
- pie_flavor 3y ago
  You can provide them with your email and they will send you a newsletter. That counts as storing user data and would require them to have to deal with the GDPR behemoth. Compliance costs a lot of time and money. Or you could just block EU users, which are not going to be reading a lot of Buffalo local news. Categorizing it as just extreme tracking is disingenuous.
72f988bf 4y ago
Meanwhile in WA state, the house bill advertised by https://washington.repair.org/ https://washington.repair.org/ has, in its most recent iterations (after 02-08-2023, in this list https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi/tld/documentsearchresults?biennium=2023-24&name=1392 https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi/tld/documentsearchresults?biennium...), an exemption that magically appeared: "Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles." Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1392%20HBR%20APP%2023.htm https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... : > (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1392-S2.E%20HBR%20APH%2023.htm https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... > (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language. The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)". Also interested people can probably spend time watching the videos in https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023&Initiative=false https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023... to learn more, such as the few minutes at 2:31:25 in https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?eventID=2023021401 https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?event...
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Damn, talk about largely neutering a bill. It shows how much contempt many manufacturers have for their customers.
  - cronix 4y ago
    And the contempt the politicians have for their voters who actually put it into law, which is more egregious imho. I don't necessarily blame an industry for trying to get things in bills that benefit their industry, but I do blame the politicians who actually make it a reality over the interests of their citizens and then a governor who signs it into law.
yupyup54133 4y ago
What gets missed in this discussion is that John Deere and other large machine manufactures offset the purchase price of these machines with the expected cost of maintenance for the lifetime of the machine. This lets business owners (in this case farmers) obtain financing for machines that might in other situations be difficult to obtain. In other words, these large machine manufactures are taking on part of the cost to "finance" these machines because in the past other financial institutions have been reluctant to do so.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  If that's the business model manufacturers want to follow, surely it could be done more honestly by requiring a service contract in exchange for financing or a reduced initial price.
  - jackmott42 4y ago
    Would be cheaper than doing work to make the thing non self repairable as well.
- kube-system 4y ago
  If they want to move product, they're going to have to do that anyway. The auto industry still subsidizes loans through their own lending operations even though we have Magnuson-Moss which allows people to go to non-manufacturer affiliated mechanics.
- mountainofdeath 4y ago
  That makes sense. Perhaps go to the full SaaS model like Rolls-Royce did for jet engines with "Power by the hour" where you lease the engine on a per flight-hour basis with all maintenance included.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    They did what now?
- 4y ago
ViperPilot 4y ago
Congratulations and thanks to Eron Wolf and Louis Rossmann of FUTO (https://www.futo.org/ https://www.futo.org/) for their massive help in getting this done. Announcement video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZwaIjpZB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZwaIjpZB0 There are additional videos linked in that video's description for those wanting additional context as to what this bill is all about.
bwanab 4y ago
What are the odds that passing this bill will actually help the mostly Democratic lawmakers who pushed and passed this bill? My guess is the beneficiaries will still largely vote against them due to nebulous culture war issues.
- dcow 4y ago
  What happened to making the world a better place because it’s beneficial to everyone? Not everything has to be election politics game theory.
  - eganist 4y ago
    There's a dark counterargument to this: that those seeking to raise the tide for everyone need to account for the maneuvers by those who wish to opportunistically deregulate and profit. There's a fine line between elevating the opportunity and quality-of-life floor v. making everyone the same at the expense of individualism and all opportunity (i.e. in favor of "sameness") But basic quality of life improvements that require public funding are often lobbied against with arguments equating raising the floor with "sameness," which harms pretty much everyone. Hence a dwindling middle class etc
    - RangerScience 4y ago
      > There's a fine line I don't think that's the case, not at all. I do think it's easy to think you're doing the first when you're not, and I do think it's easy to make the first look like the second, particularly in scarcity-based circumstances, or by "counting the outcome" differently. I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the second (call it "forced equalization") can't or doesn't happen - I'm arguing against it being similar enough to opportunity elevation (good word choice btw!) that there's merely a fine line between them.
      - eganist 4y ago
        > I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho. It's a good question, and in hindsight I can see why it wouldn't be obvious. Basically: because the two are part of an equality gradient where one end is effectively an opportunity lottery with the worst odds and the other end is "sameness", and where a society draws the line (manifesting as parties with their positions, which of course means there can be more than one line to dice up the gradient a bit) depends on a whole host of factors. Culture, experiences, etc. Your points above largely support the Gradient argument; it's easy to assume teal is blue, or perhaps green, or to convince some people blue is green (comically, some stoplights come to mind). I'm merely sharing my formula for how the line manifests. I'm guessing we're on the same page and are debating a nuance. Lol
bobleeswagger 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Can you please stop breaking the site guidelines? I don't want to ban you again and it looks like you've been doing a reasonable job of sticking to them (thank you!), but comments like this one, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35602686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35602686, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35043900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35043900 are the sort of flamebait/fulmination/snark that we're trying to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - bobleeswagger 3y ago
    Allow me to start by quoting your profile: "Conflict is essential to human life" Do you ever ask yourself if the folks who report my comments just have a hard time with freedom of expression? Do you ever reach out to the ones that report everything that isn't a mainstream opinion? I know they exist. It's the bread and butter of the culture here. Look, I get it. YCombinator isn't a constitutionalist organization, or whatever. You are based in America, though. I hope you reflect on that. Often. Let's get to the meat: If you want to censor people (or your boss wants you to), you should just do it. Bullying folks into censoring themselves is no bueno, and I am more than happy to call this out as exactly that. It's hilariously ironic because I'm the kind of person who could absolutely help this community, but you are certain I need to be pushed out whenever we meet. How fun to push up that hill. Still, I try. If sharing my thoughts, freely, on topic is "breaking the rules," feel free to call out the specific rule I am breaking. This "PlEaSe ReAd OuR GuIdElInEs" crap is pretty despicable and my time is worth a lot more than that. Your time is worth a lot more than that. If you can't be specific: Please, don't bother. I haven't broken any site guidelines with this comment, or the last one. It's a two way street. I'd be grateful if you started taking my perspective into account, but I guess that is a lot to ask, even though you have had so many opportunities.
jimhefferon 4y ago
Good for farmers. What about others?
- kwiens 4y ago
  We have introduced bills in 28 states so far this year. Some are ag, some are medical, some are consumer electronics focused. Making very good progress.
  - dd36 3y ago
    Why must they be so narrow?
    - TheFreim 3y ago
      It's easier to pass, I believe. If you made a sweeping all encompassing "right to repair" bill you would then be targeted by every single group which opposes right to repair, if you target agriculture or medical areas you are likely to only primarily receice heavy opposition from a segment rather than a large swath of industries. Narrow bills are easier to understand and explain. They do one thing and they do it right rather than trying to solve every problem. A narrow bill has less of a target. If you have a large bill there might be one small element which some politician couldn't vote for for various reasons, reduce the scale and you reduce the target area. Those are just a few ideas, not an expert in this but these seemed to make sense. Let me know what you think.
      - kwiens 3y ago
        That's exactly it. It's about segmenting the opposition. That's not exactly the best policymaking, of course. There's no fundamental difference between fixing a tractor and a smartphone. Over time, we're hopeful the policies will converge for all devices. Last year we did electric wheelchairs in Colorado, this year the same legislators expanded it to tractors.
        deleted 3y ago
malshe 3y ago
This part caught my eye: Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk. These are not serious arguments, are they?
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  No. "But they could do something illegal with the thing they need to do their job" is not a good argument. These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job. One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  No, none of the lockouts were actually intended to prevent farmers from rolling coal in their tractors. Also, I'm not sure why a farmer would want to roll coal. But since rolling coal is a thing that people occasionally do, it's a useful boogeyman. Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board. [0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Roll coal? Would that be a dangerous term to search for, or should I play ignoramus and ask here?
    - Arrath 3y ago
      A practice typically done by rednecks with their diesel pickup trucks, tweaking the ECU and fuel profiles run the engine overly rich so the exhaust billows out thick black clouds (thus, "rolling coal"), particularly when they rev the engine.
test6554 3y ago
Pitting big business interests against rural/agricultural interest. Seems like a potential wedge issue for US conservatives if I've ever seen one.
gok 3y ago
I'm sure Colorado will be rewarded with cheaper food and more efficient agriculture.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Are you saying that allowing farmers to repair their own equipment is pointless, or that allowing it will cause food prices to go up? Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers.
  - KomoD 3y ago
    > Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers. He didn't say any of that
bigattichouse 3y ago
Only farmers?

437 points by hubraumhugo 4y ago

I was mildly interested in the article based on the title, because the right to repair is imho necessary in many areas of life. But I am most definitely not interested enough to do the trivial work to bypass the " This content is not available in your country/region." message. If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.

Clubber 4y ago
It's not that important for the EU. The summary is John Deere would put chips in their tractors that were aware if you replaced a part. If you replaced that part, the tractor would brick until you took it to the dealership to update the computer.
neon_electro 4y ago
You can read it here: https://archive.ph/elD6M https://archive.ph/elD6M
_a9 4y ago
Like another commenter mentioned, using archive.today bypasses most paywalls and blocks. A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here [0]: https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-becomes-1st-to-pass-right-to-repair-for-farmers/ https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-bec...
pie_flavor 3y ago
You can provide them with your email and they will send you a newsletter. That counts as storing user data and would require them to have to deal with the GDPR behemoth. Compliance costs a lot of time and money. Or you could just block EU users, which are not going to be reading a lot of Buffalo local news. Categorizing it as just extreme tracking is disingenuous.

72f988bf 4y ago

Meanwhile in WA state, the house bill advertised by https://washington.repair.org/ https://washington.repair.org/ has, in its most recent iterations (after 02-08-2023, in this list https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi/tld/documentsearchresults?biennium=2023-24&name=1392 https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi/tld/documentsearchresults?biennium...), an exemption that magically appeared: "Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles." Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1392%20HBR%20APP%2023.htm https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... : > (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1392-S2.E%20HBR%20APH%2023.htm https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... > (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language. The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)". Also interested people can probably spend time watching the videos in https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023&Initiative=false https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023... to learn more, such as the few minutes at 2:31:25 in https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?eventID=2023021401 https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?event...

JohnFen 4y ago
Damn, talk about largely neutering a bill. It shows how much contempt many manufacturers have for their customers.
- cronix 4y ago
  And the contempt the politicians have for their voters who actually put it into law, which is more egregious imho. I don't necessarily blame an industry for trying to get things in bills that benefit their industry, but I do blame the politicians who actually make it a reality over the interests of their citizens and then a governor who signs it into law.

yupyup54133 4y ago

What gets missed in this discussion is that John Deere and other large machine manufactures offset the purchase price of these machines with the expected cost of maintenance for the lifetime of the machine. This lets business owners (in this case farmers) obtain financing for machines that might in other situations be difficult to obtain. In other words, these large machine manufactures are taking on part of the cost to "finance" these machines because in the past other financial institutions have been reluctant to do so.

JohnFen 4y ago
If that's the business model manufacturers want to follow, surely it could be done more honestly by requiring a service contract in exchange for financing or a reduced initial price.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  Would be cheaper than doing work to make the thing non self repairable as well.
kube-system 4y ago
If they want to move product, they're going to have to do that anyway. The auto industry still subsidizes loans through their own lending operations even though we have Magnuson-Moss which allows people to go to non-manufacturer affiliated mechanics.
mountainofdeath 4y ago
That makes sense. Perhaps go to the full SaaS model like Rolls-Royce did for jet engines with "Power by the hour" where you lease the engine on a per flight-hour basis with all maintenance included.
- flangola7 4y ago
  They did what now?
4y ago

ViperPilot 4y ago

Congratulations and thanks to Eron Wolf and Louis Rossmann of FUTO (https://www.futo.org/ https://www.futo.org/) for their massive help in getting this done. Announcement video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZwaIjpZB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZwaIjpZB0 There are additional videos linked in that video's description for those wanting additional context as to what this bill is all about.

bwanab 4y ago

What are the odds that passing this bill will actually help the mostly Democratic lawmakers who pushed and passed this bill? My guess is the beneficiaries will still largely vote against them due to nebulous culture war issues.

dcow 4y ago
What happened to making the world a better place because it’s beneficial to everyone? Not everything has to be election politics game theory.
- eganist 4y ago
  There's a dark counterargument to this: that those seeking to raise the tide for everyone need to account for the maneuvers by those who wish to opportunistically deregulate and profit. There's a fine line between elevating the opportunity and quality-of-life floor v. making everyone the same at the expense of individualism and all opportunity (i.e. in favor of "sameness") But basic quality of life improvements that require public funding are often lobbied against with arguments equating raising the floor with "sameness," which harms pretty much everyone. Hence a dwindling middle class etc
  - RangerScience 4y ago
    > There's a fine line I don't think that's the case, not at all. I do think it's easy to think you're doing the first when you're not, and I do think it's easy to make the first look like the second, particularly in scarcity-based circumstances, or by "counting the outcome" differently. I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the second (call it "forced equalization") can't or doesn't happen - I'm arguing against it being similar enough to opportunity elevation (good word choice btw!) that there's merely a fine line between them.
    - eganist 4y ago
      > I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho. It's a good question, and in hindsight I can see why it wouldn't be obvious. Basically: because the two are part of an equality gradient where one end is effectively an opportunity lottery with the worst odds and the other end is "sameness", and where a society draws the line (manifesting as parties with their positions, which of course means there can be more than one line to dice up the gradient a bit) depends on a whole host of factors. Culture, experiences, etc. Your points above largely support the Gradient argument; it's easy to assume teal is blue, or perhaps green, or to convince some people blue is green (comically, some stoplights come to mind). I'm merely sharing my formula for how the line manifests. I'm guessing we're on the same page and are debating a nuance. Lol

bobleeswagger 4y ago

[flagged]

dang 4y ago
Can you please stop breaking the site guidelines? I don't want to ban you again and it looks like you've been doing a reasonable job of sticking to them (thank you!), but comments like this one, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35602686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35602686, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35043900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35043900 are the sort of flamebait/fulmination/snark that we're trying to avoid here. You can make your substantive points without that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- bobleeswagger 3y ago
  Allow me to start by quoting your profile: "Conflict is essential to human life" Do you ever ask yourself if the folks who report my comments just have a hard time with freedom of expression? Do you ever reach out to the ones that report everything that isn't a mainstream opinion? I know they exist. It's the bread and butter of the culture here. Look, I get it. YCombinator isn't a constitutionalist organization, or whatever. You are based in America, though. I hope you reflect on that. Often. Let's get to the meat: If you want to censor people (or your boss wants you to), you should just do it. Bullying folks into censoring themselves is no bueno, and I am more than happy to call this out as exactly that. It's hilariously ironic because I'm the kind of person who could absolutely help this community, but you are certain I need to be pushed out whenever we meet. How fun to push up that hill. Still, I try. If sharing my thoughts, freely, on topic is "breaking the rules," feel free to call out the specific rule I am breaking. This "PlEaSe ReAd OuR GuIdElInEs" crap is pretty despicable and my time is worth a lot more than that. Your time is worth a lot more than that. If you can't be specific: Please, don't bother. I haven't broken any site guidelines with this comment, or the last one. It's a two way street. I'd be grateful if you started taking my perspective into account, but I guess that is a lot to ask, even though you have had so many opportunities.

jimhefferon 4y ago

Good for farmers. What about others?

kwiens 4y ago
We have introduced bills in 28 states so far this year. Some are ag, some are medical, some are consumer electronics focused. Making very good progress.
- dd36 3y ago
  Why must they be so narrow?
  - TheFreim 3y ago
    It's easier to pass, I believe. If you made a sweeping all encompassing "right to repair" bill you would then be targeted by every single group which opposes right to repair, if you target agriculture or medical areas you are likely to only primarily receice heavy opposition from a segment rather than a large swath of industries. Narrow bills are easier to understand and explain. They do one thing and they do it right rather than trying to solve every problem. A narrow bill has less of a target. If you have a large bill there might be one small element which some politician couldn't vote for for various reasons, reduce the scale and you reduce the target area. Those are just a few ideas, not an expert in this but these seemed to make sense. Let me know what you think.
    - kwiens 3y ago
      That's exactly it. It's about segmenting the opposition. That's not exactly the best policymaking, of course. There's no fundamental difference between fixing a tractor and a smartphone. Over time, we're hopeful the policies will converge for all devices. Last year we did electric wheelchairs in Colorado, this year the same legislators expanded it to tractors.
      - deleted 3y ago

malshe 3y ago

This part caught my eye: Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk. These are not serious arguments, are they?

iancmceachern 3y ago
No. "But they could do something illegal with the thing they need to do their job" is not a good argument. These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job. One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
kmeisthax 3y ago
No, none of the lockouts were actually intended to prevent farmers from rolling coal in their tractors. Also, I'm not sure why a farmer would want to roll coal. But since rolling coal is a thing that people occasionally do, it's a useful boogeyman. Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board. [0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Roll coal? Would that be a dangerous term to search for, or should I play ignoramus and ask here?
  - Arrath 3y ago
    A practice typically done by rednecks with their diesel pickup trucks, tweaking the ECU and fuel profiles run the engine overly rich so the exhaust billows out thick black clouds (thus, "rolling coal"), particularly when they rev the engine.

test6554 3y ago

Pitting big business interests against rural/agricultural interest. Seems like a potential wedge issue for US conservatives if I've ever seen one.

gok 3y ago

I'm sure Colorado will be rewarded with cheaper food and more efficient agriculture.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Are you saying that allowing farmers to repair their own equipment is pointless, or that allowing it will cause food prices to go up? Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers.
- KomoD 3y ago
  > Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers. He didn't say any of that

bigattichouse 3y ago

Only farmers?