Why is the US Gov't buying all the seed companies?
481755
If you want to control a people, then control their food. They will get compliant, real quick.
110886
The same reason no single government on earth has been able to crack down on drugs, illegal weapons and organized crime.  There are too many people in on the scam and earning money off of it to effectively stop it.  Even if they plan raids of smaller outlets which sell pirated merchandise, the bigger factories which produce these things will only produce more of them.  \n\nIn a nutshell, if you don't catch the big fish, they will always produce guppies.
326198
Where do you live?\nThe US are currently being held back a bit in terms of research by the Government's conservative posture, meaning that no federal money is being put into controversial technologies such as stem cell research. A lot of researchers are going to Europe instead, seemingly opportunities there are growing.\nThere's probably still a lot of money in biology in the US, though. But it's decreasing.
1127504
Because the governement isn't a competive business in our free market economy.  If you complain to a retail store manager, they'll fix the problem so you'll come back and spend loot in their store.  But you can't go anywhere else for your government/municipal needs.  There's no competition.\n\nPlus, those heads get every nitwit in the world walking through.  It doesn't justify poor service, but they gotta deal with some $h!t, yo.
287315
The government pays farmers to destroy their crops or not farm land normally in conjunction with restricting imports to maintain artificially high domestic prices of rice, milk, sugar, cotton, peanuts, tobacco, and other commodities.\n\nThis is so farmers don't lose money and can continue to put food on our tables as well as the tables of their families.
1170670
Yes, but with a few conditions I believe is the best solution. I think they should be given funds based on the amount of food they have grown and was not sold or used. Funds should be allocated based on some criteria like...\n\n1) Below current domestic market value\n2) Above the price it would be to sell it abroad\n3) Up to a set limit based on the type of food/product it is\n\nThe idea here is that they should not get full price for the food which no one can use. This would cause farmers to grow massive amounts of food because they would know they get money for it all. It should be above the price it would be to sell it aboard (we want to keep the organic material on the country's soil for replanting and future use) and based on the difficulty and cost it is to grow/raise the certain product they should be compensated for proportionately. \n\nIf it is cheaper to grow wheat than lettuce, why should the people growing wheat be paid the same as those with lettuce? This would cause everyone to grow wheat.\n\nI am not a whiz at subsidies, but a few of these ideas make sense to me.
72154
I just think it's silly.  In my old city, we had a radical "save the seeds!" group.  I suppose it could be important and it won't hurt, but we're nowhere near a crisis and I doubt there would be much use for any seeds that would be saved.\n\nOh well.  At least it reminds me of Chrono Trigger.
566709
LOL! I KNOW! (^_^) I guess they don't know that 1. Not all produce is picked by hand. The only ones I think that still are, are strawberries and lettuce. Even tomatoes are being mechanically harvested. 2. They don't EARN enough money for their taxes to pay off the amount they are using in gov. aid 3. We don't manufacture many things in the U.S. anymore, ANYONE with a limited amount of education can see that the U.S. is becoming a service based nation. We get our goods from nations like India and China. A lot of the food we eat is now being imported, like sea food. 4. Oil is the major player in setting prices. Cheap labor can be found anywhere in the world. They are not indispensable. Ask the Chinese.5. Even if 30million, which I doubt, go on strike. That still leaves about 270million people who are not. It's just a small percentage overall. 6. Look how long the women's movement took. Look how long the civil rights movement took.7. The majority of LEGAL U.S. citizens are against ILLEGAL immigration and rewarding people who break the law. 8. The U.S. is NOT like France and other countries on the American continent. Protesting isn't going to move the senate as much as you would hope it would. This is a nation of LAWS. We don't change them just because they INCONVENIENCE you.\n\n\nGeneral Wesc: My father was part of a massive layoff, from a company in silicon valley Ca. Many, many people were let go when the dot-com bubble burst. Ford, and other car manufacturers have also let people go. These were people who lost their jobs PERMANENTLY! It wasn't just thousands but TENS of thousands of people, and every year the number is going up. They survived. 1 day isn't going to make a difference. Your point is invalid. Many analysts have suggested that the illegal labor force is actually HINDERING the development of new technology. Just like the cheap price of oil has kept the u.s. from switching over to ethanol, as Brazil has done. We are paying the price now, for some small savings back then, for our oil dependence. The price of oil is only going to rise, I heard it can easily hit $100 a barrel. The cheap illegal labor force will have a bigger negative impact as well in the not so distant future.  There will come a time when it will no longer be 'cheap' labor, but still be from illegals. Do we have the foresight to prepare and solve the problem as we should have done with oil before the consequences are irreversible?
981596
Check by visiting the website lists of reputable seed companies such as Thompson and Morgan. Any restrictions on the supply of seed to specific countries will be posted there.  I can't imagine why Canada would choose to proscribe this plant, in the UK it is a common  native weed  but not invasive or an ecological threat.\nWhy would you want to grow it anyway? I spend too much time pulling it out!
841363
The government could care less. It's the corporations. And it's not the pot, it's the hemp that they have to keep illegal. It would replace too many poisonous things that they sell. Companies like Monsanto. Those are the kinds of companies that lobbied to make it illegal, many decades ago. Example. The first American battle ship was made of 85% hemp. Do a search and see how it use to be the main stay for the entire planet.
1056754
Its not a problem of the US, its a problem of vested interests in the high polluting energy sector.  Unfortunately most politicians are in the back pocket of these people and others who were the first major industries of the world.  It is a problem with all governments.  In Australia farmers interests are massively over represented in government, out of proportion to other sectors.  This is because farming is a primary industry.  If the world embraced renewables and spent the money to develop the industries the problem will be solved.
275794
Because businesses want them here illegally so they can exploit them and leave taxpayers to pick up the pieces.\n\nIt's all part of a big conspiracy. I'll send you the newsletter that will explain everything.
1110635
Hey magpie, BALLS. The USA is not the richest country in the world. Brain washed as usual.\n\nHey ED BALLS. The UK Lease you our bases, and as usual you slag everybody of. ONE OF THESE DAYS THAT LITTLE GIRL WILL GET HER WISH.
696661
Did you read your own link? The government's quotas were to protect the market for other farmers and not induce surpluses to drive prices lower than what would be necessary to successfully maintain the farms. This is similar to monopoly laws. In the link you cited, the following statement was made:\n\n"Roscoe Filburn exceeded his production quota by 239 excess bushels. To consume this amount in the form of bread, Mr. Filburn and his family would have had to consume nearly 44 one-pound loaves each day for the following year."\n\n44 pounds a day of bread? Come on now. Filburn was obviously trying to capitalize on the free enterprize system at other farmers expense!!!\n\nHad the government allowed Filburn to go unchecked, he would have saturated the local market with grain, lowering the price per bushel, allowing him to come out OK with his mass production but putting other farmers at risk as the excess supply would have driven the price too low for them to keep their farms running. They would have probably foreclosed, then Filburn would have a local monopoly on wheat grain in following years allowing him to sell for inflated price because his competition would have already been eliminated.\n\nPolice State? Not hardly! Your example clearly shows our government looking out for the people on a long-term basis.
204086
This issue is overblown.  They are not suppressing democracy.  They are following the laws of the land they are operating in.  The are granted permission to operate in China and must follow its laws.  Just if any foreign company was doing business in the US, we would expect them to follow our laws.
481988
Not really.  The government has to regulate correctly.  If they don't put the price ceiling where it would be in perfect competition or at least lower than monopoly price, then it doesn't really do anything.  Even then, there might be some dead weight.  I don't remember fully.
143929
Absolutely not. In fact, Americans should try to buy more. We shouldn't let those ignorant fanatics bully the Denmark government into restricing freedom of speech.