Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

garlicroastedpotato t1_j8o6t57 wrote

Reply to comment by Rogueish1 in 11 states consider 'right to repair' for farming equipment by Ranew

Okay, so here's the broad issue.

John Deere is kind of a monopolsitic farming equipment manufacturer. They're in cahoots with the US government on this. Every time there's "farming aid" that the US shifts around the world it's always John Deere equipment. This is because John Deere is the world's only clear American farming equipment company that manufacturers just about everything in the US. It's a huge boon to the US economy. Their two biggest rivals are AGCO (who work under a number of brands including Massey, Caterpillar, and Fendt), Kubota, and CNH Industrial (Case and New Holland). The US government wants to protect John Deere because the US government has decided it doesn't want to collaborate with Europe on things... they don't want to be dependent on Europe for anything (see: US spending trillions of dollars on chips manufacturing when they could just buy from Europe instead)

Farmers have a choice when it comes to farm equipment. I've actually done farming equipment acquisitions. When you talk to farming equipment sales people they're more than happy to give you a table with the projected income earnings you would get from their equipment based on what type of crop you have in mind. For most farmers it makes these decisions a lot easier. A harvester that is just 1CM wider might result in a 5% gross profit for that harvest.

So basically, in terms of your life time investment in that piece of equipment (including maintenance, purchase price, loans, etc.) John Deere is just always a clear winner on these tables. Because of this farmers have chosen John Deere wherever they can. It's the world's most popular brand.

John Deere used this position to add even more value to their equipment packages to make them even more valuable.... and it's a part of the purchase now. By signing on to a maintenance contract with John Deere you get an even cheaper piece of equipment but now you have to pay exclusively JD for maintenance.

And I can't say this enough... farmers know what they're getting into when they get into these agreements. They have competitors they can go to that don't have these contracts. They're choosing John Deere because it's the one that'll earn them the most money. Most companies have a warranty that operates like this for two years and farmers are very happy with that (until they void their warranty by trying to fix it themselves). JD is offering a lifetime warranty on their equipment... as long as you don't try to fix it themselves.

John Deere settled the issue. They made it so that farmers could fix their own equipment and be provided their own manuals as long as they re-signed their contract. The new contract would require that they cannot sue John Deere for any liability issues, they have to use OEM parts and they can't tamper with the DEF system (federal law requires all new farming equipment to have it).

But some feel like this just isn't good enough. They feel like John Deere should just not be allowed to provide these types of contracts at all. The US drags their feet on this because they're in bed with John Deere... but they also don't know what happens next. Like if you say that these contracts are void... are you fucking over a lot of people?

Because if these contracts are void for farmers wanting to fix their equipment... they're certainly void for John Deere. All these farmers paid MORE for these tractors on the basis that they were getting a lifetime maintenance contract. If that arrangement is void does it also mean JD is no longer liable for providing repairs to the people who want it for free? It's a huge cost savings for JD if the solution becomes to just make these kinds of contracts illegal.

By also going against an iconic exclusively American brand you're also opening the doors of foreign competition... which means US job lay offs... which will make some politicians politically vulnerable. Farmers can choose a lot of brands... they choose JD... almost entirely because of price but also because of US and state level endorsements. It's similar to a lot of the "Buy American" proposals from the US government.... proposals that have always been illegal by the standards of USMCA... but that the US illegally continues to push. It'd have a similar impact to say, the US government deciding to buy a series of fighter jets from France.

12

Rogueish1 t1_j8olail wrote

Here's the issue with this.. monopolies, as with bribery, are illegal in the great USA

10

garlicroastedpotato t1_j8oozmj wrote

It's not a pure monopoly. It's more like how Google has a monopoly on web searches... but then there's still Bing.

2

dungone t1_j8putv6 wrote

The Chicago School of conservative richonomics really perverted everyone’s concept of what a monopoly is. Monopolies used to be understood as any anti-competitive trusts or practices against any of the stakeholders who were in a position of not having another choice. Whether the workers, customers, shareholders, etc. Right-wing propaganda changed this around to require a company to have 100% market share.

6

fredlllll t1_j8olvn3 wrote

you forgot to mention how you need software to unlock the machine again after a switch failed and you replaced it. software that costs a lot of money or isnt even available to farmers. so you replace the switch and the machine tells you "go to dealer to unlock huehue" but you cant move the machine, and calling the dealer out costs you days in time

7

garlicroastedpotato t1_j8opw50 wrote

Actually, every piece of farming equipment has this as a standard feature. According to the article those sorts of things wouldn't be changing with this law because they would mean removing safeguards.

The law proposed would make something like the MOU JD signed into law in some states. It's not certain what consequences this would have with the contracts. Which is why they're only considering this and not doing this. They have to study the particular impacts of this decision. They don't want to sign it into law and find out that they made a law that creates a recall issue that cripples agricultural for a year.

2

Ranew OP t1_j8oxd6r wrote

The MOU with Farm Bureua was a promised continuation of the status quo and probably the simplest PR both could do.

2

Ranew OP t1_j8owfde wrote

I can get into software for $1800. That's cheaper than the radiator I put a fan through last harvest. For the price of the radiator, I can have OEM cable and software or third-party that comes with a laptop.

2

AnacharsisIV t1_j8pguby wrote

> they don't want to be dependent on Europe for anything (see: US spending trillions of dollars on chips manufacturing when they could just buy from Europe instead)

Things like food and microchips are vital to the persistence of the American state. Every country should strive for self-sufficiency in those areas and some other significant industrial capacities. God forbid more wars break out in Europe and we were dependent on them for our chip manufacture; well we just have wait until that war is over (or end it ourselves) if we want chips... or we can see that problem coming and build our own chip factories. The same thing goes with food and that would logically extend to the farming equipment used to create the high yields to feed a country that takes up most of a continent.

It's not unreasonable to want all of this done domestically.

4