←back to thread

568 points rntn | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
chasil ◴[] No.41881693[source]
There was also a fatality in the last workplace strike.

Deere seems to have bad relations with their employees, customers, and regulatory bodies.

The shareholders should remove the board of directors.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/...

replies(4): >>41882429 #>>41883250 #>>41883570 #>>41884505 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41882429[source]
The shareholders don't care about any of that if they think the board did a decent job of propping up the stock price.

Firing a board is generally risky, and the shareholders probably haven't fired them because even though the board has, almost objectively, not been good - firing them is likely even worse for the stock short term, and there aren't a lot of long-term, active investors left in the world.

replies(3): >>41882589 #>>41883100 #>>41885612 #
chasil ◴[] No.41882589[source]
The board's goal was to lock-in maintenance with computer security, which failed catastrophically. All previous generations of Deere tractors have on-board electronics that can be jailbroken.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/john_deere_doom/

Just for that failure, they should all likely be gone.

replies(2): >>41882697 #>>41884859 #
adventured ◴[] No.41882697{3}[source]
Their business is booming. That significantly overwhelms the concern you're raising.

They have gone from $4.3b in operating income to $14.5b in three years, while their sales nearly doubled. That's an old industrial company boom the likes of which is almost never seen by those types of companies.

By comparison what you're calling catastrophic is entirely trivial. It's not even in the room as a consideration compared to the soaring profits. Nobody is removing a whole board with that kind of profit growth.

replies(1): >>41884088 #
worik ◴[] No.41884088{4}[source]
> Their business is booming. That significantly overwhelms the concern you're raising.

Yes their profit is up, no it is unrelated to the concerns

The company is acting in a way that luts the whole food system at risk

They should be disbanded, by force. I recommend replacement with a farmer cooperative

replies(1): >>41884252 #
1. SideQuark ◴[] No.41884252{5}[source]
Countries that act so ignorantly of consequences or little regard for private property never end well.

If Deere is so bad buy from competitors, of which there are many.

replies(3): >>41884381 #>>41885784 #>>41888017 #
2. phil21 ◴[] No.41884381[source]
> If Deere is so bad buy from competitors, of which there are many.

I somewhat agree with your earlier comment, but this bit is ignoring the systemic issues involved.

Deere is a leader in much of the efficiency technology that allows large-scale farming operations to reach the economy of scale needed to farm the huge multi-thousand (tens of thousands of acres in many cases) grain operations that are slowly but surely taking over food production in the US.

This trend, unabated, is a weird form of monopoly power for lack of a better word. If one manufacturer is more or less the sole-source for the largest corporate farms, and those farming operations are putting smaller ones out of business due to cost pressure - eventually - and likely sooner than later it becomes a too big to fail situation and a systemic national security risk.

This is starting to get into the realm of arms manufacturing. If these trends continue for another decade or three, and then Deere has say a massive IT failure, planting and harvesting operations literally grind to a halt for the top-end equipment entirely reliant on the automation and data harvesting these machines require to operate. People will be at risk for starvation in the event of an extended outage. Farming as a Service has a hidden cost to it many are not seeing in these comments.

I don't agree with disbanding Deere and nationalizing it - however this really needs to be looked at much more than a simple competition issue. It's rapidly becoming a winner-takes-all market, which is subsequently running the smaller operations out of business and putting the US food supply at a systemic risk if nothing is done.

Of course a competitor could somehow battle through the patent forest and capital requirements, but I wouldn't bet our lives on that.

3. Teever ◴[] No.41885784[source]
Why do you seem so opposed to regulating away this kind of behaviour?

Like what's bad about fixing this growing issue with regulation?

replies(1): >>41885920 #
4. eschneider ◴[] No.41888017[source]
I work for a direct JD competitor (the, um, orange one...) and I'm happy to say that JD's behavior does drive a lot of customers our way. :)

And the Deer example is sorta nice in that I don't have to explain to management why that sorta DRM is a horrible idea. They already know.