• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Acreage Holdings

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
31,466
Likes
39,750
Location
Rocky Mountains
#2
Let us know when it goes public
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,302
Likes
3,530
Location
On a mail train.
#3
Interesting indeed.
Hiring Boehner was a power move.
This company wants a big chunk of the cannabis industries billion dollar crop and they just may pull it off and become the Wal-Mart retailer of pot......
This company has my attention and may get some of my fiat.
I'll have to roll one up and think about it....
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
10,415
Likes
9,637
Location
Montana
#7
If some giant corporation controlled by the banking elite corners the marijuana market, the product will be laced with chemicals that harm you. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 

90%RealMoney

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,796
Likes
4,025
Location
Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
#8
I heard from an Attorney on a local radio program, that the recent passing of the marijuana proposition in Ca. is a big scam. They presented it as being oriented towards the personal grower, and such, with a maximum size for gardens. From what this Attorney says, The big boys can't do business in Ca. for 5 years. Then all hell breaks loose, and all the Hedge Fund, and Wall Street types, will inundate Ca. , and the size limitations on grows is out the window. He says these big money people will literally be growing on thousands of acres of land, which they are probably purchasing right now as we speak. I don't have an issue with any of this, but I'm sure the politicians are salivating at all the pay offs they'll be getting, as well as mucho more tax revenue. I figure, might as well get in on the whole thing, with what looks like might be the company that runs the show eventually. Too bad there's no cheap shares for little guys like us to get ahold of.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#9
Aw, hoarder, don't be such a pessimist. Come on, look forward to kickin back in that beautiful cabin of yours this summer, with a big doobie, enjoying some of Montana's best smoke and scenery. Eh?

Is there a creek nearby?
BF
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#10
I heard from an Attorney on a local radio program, that the recent passing of the marijuana proposition in Ca. is a big scam. They presented it as being oriented towards the personal grower, and such, with a maximum size for gardens. From what this Attorney says, The big boys can't do business in Ca. for 5 years. Then all hell breaks loose, and all the Hedge Fund, and Wall Street types, will inundate Ca. , and the size limitations on grows is out the window. He says these big money people will literally be growing on thousands of acres of land, which they are probably purchasing right now as we speak. I don't have an issue with any of this, but I'm sure the politicians are salivating at all the pay offs they'll be getting, as well as mucho more tax revenue. I figure, might as well get in on the whole thing, with what looks like might be the company that runs the show eventually. Too bad there's no cheap shares for little guys like us to get ahold of.
It don't matter, look at it this way; I'm sure glad Budweiser & Mickelbob aren’t the only beers I can buy in the market. There are lots of ‘craft beers’, just like there will always be room for lots of ‘craft pot’ varieties.

BF
 
Last edited:

90%RealMoney

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,796
Likes
4,025
Location
Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
#11
You are right there. Here in NorCal, so many private people are growing their own, that the price has collapsed, on the black market anyway. I saw a Craigslist ad for a local grower, offering his wares at $900.00 per pound. That was in November, right after harvest time. I'm sure the price edges up a bit towards summer, but not necessarily. Plenty out there I believe. Still expensive as hell in the Dispensaries. Who wants to pay 20%+ taxes on medical pot, when individuals are selling so cheap?
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,365
Likes
6,510
#12
how can we wreck his company?
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,302
Likes
3,530
Location
On a mail train.
#13
The big boys ran and are running all the mom and pops out of business in Colorado.
Recent legislation cut back on the numbers that individuals can grow , down to 12 plants , statewide , I think.
I say think because the damn laws are vague.
They can vary county by county , DA by DA school by school , oh save the children.
The big boy goal is to dominate the cannabis market and they will.
They continually make growing your own as difficult and complicated as possible by passing laws and bylaws , regulations and ordinances , so much so that there are MORE ways to get in trouble with pot than before it was legal!....
The big boys will eventually take over.
There will always be the informal economy , bootleggers and nonconformists too , niche markets abound for primo cannabis , no pesticides , herbicides , or fungicides thank you very much.
When this stock goes public , it will be buyer beware , just like all the paper certificates....
My financial advisor advised me to prepare for the future.
0411181351_HDR.jpg
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,238
Likes
19,929
Location
ORYGUN
#14
If some giant corporation controlled by the banking elite corners the marijuana market, the product will be laced with chemicals that harm you. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And when called up in front of CONgress to be questioned, they will all deny, deny, deny AND lo & behold, they will go free !!! :judge:give finger:
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#15
Prices have come down around here in the cannabis stores enough to easily compete with the BlkMkt.
Personally — I'm enjoyin it.
:dancing guy :beer: :dancing guy

BF
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#16
how can we wreck his company?
No dave, you really don’t want to think that way. Cannabis is the wave of the future. You know how us Americans grab a good idea and crank out the best rendition of the product possible. So can’t you see our businesses in the US building up their brand, making the best bud, hash, oils and extracts in the world?

The US would take over! It would be bongs, not bombs! So invest your spare coin in these growing (no pun intended) companies and retire a rich man at 45 (unless yer already 45, then make it 50).

:Happy::Happy:
BF
 

90%RealMoney

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,796
Likes
4,025
Location
Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
#17
The ex Gov. of Massachusetts is also a new board member. So this co. has brought on the political hitters, to get their way anyway. I'll throw some cabbage in on this one, just in case. Remember a few years ago, when Facebook went public? We were discussing it here. Most said they wouldn't touch it. I felt it would drop to around 18, which it did. Would have been a good buy there, a 10 bagger right now. There ain't no stopping this green wave, that's for sure.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,737
Likes
7,021
#22
Interesting indeed. Hiring Boehner was a power move.
This company wants a big chunk of the cannabis industries billion dollar crop and they just may pull it off and become the Wal-Mart retailer of pot......
This company has my attention and may get some of my fiat.
I'll have to roll one up and think about it....
Don't bother pondering just enjoy your buzz. Big Tobacco is poker-faced waiting for a Federal Bill to become law legalizing MaryJane. They'll swoop in like ducks on June bugs.
Back in the 80s I recall Heads talking about B.T. land holdings in the Caribbean biding their time.
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
959
Likes
2,200
Location
Northern Arizona
#23
Johnny Doobie Boehner will be live on CNBC in about 35 minutes (10:30 AM ET) to discuss his "epiphany."
.
.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,238
Likes
19,929
Location
ORYGUN
#25
how can we wreck his company?
Simple, grow yer own, roll yer own. It would put boner out of business & stop the state, county, city tax grab !:welcome::weed::trolls:
 
Last edited:

90%RealMoney

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,796
Likes
4,025
Location
Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
#26
Simple, grow yer own, roll yer own. It would put bonner out of business & stop the state, county, city tax grab !:welcome::weed::trolls:
Exactly why I was against the legalization proposition in Ca. My neighbor is a pot head from swayback. Looks like Jerry Garcia. Anyway, he's been foaming at the mouth about legalization for years. He just wants it to be normalized, so he isn't looked upon like an outcast or something. Funny thing is, he represents himself as some kind of renegade outlaw type. I told him now he's just another law abiding drone like anyone else. I knew what would happen with the law passing, taxes, price collapse, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
959
Likes
2,200
Location
Northern Arizona
#27
US/Canadian pot stocks zoomed ahead today following Johnnie Doobie's TV appearances, Some were up 20-30-40% in one day.

And now this out late today.

Trump Announces Unprecedented Support for Legalizing Marijuana
Drug war is over (if you want it).

Nick Gillespie|Apr. 13, 2018 5:20 pm




On the first great-weather day of Spring 2018, President Donald Trump has committed to withdrawing federal objections to the legalization of marijuana, reports Tom Angell of Marijuana Moment.

President Trump is preparing to support far-reaching legislation to reform federal marijuana prohibition so that states can enact their own cannabis laws without interference.​
"Since the campaign, President Trump has consistently supported states' rights to decide for themselves how best to approach marijuana," U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (D-CO) said in a statement. "Late Wednesday, I received a commitment from the President that the Department of Justice's rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado's legal marijuana industry. Furthermore, President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states' rights issue once and for all."​
In a briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed the development, calling Gardner's statement "accurate."​
"We're always consulting Congress about issues including states' rights, of which the president is a firm believer," she said.​



USDOJThis is huge, as it would unambiguously allow states to pursue legalization without worrying about a federal crackdown such as the one proposed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the start of this year. An unambiguous ally in the White House would also go a long way to ending skittishness on the part of banks and other firms to engage with pot-related industry in states where such business is legal. At Marijuana Moment, Angell writes that the details of the "legislative solution" Sen. Gardner mentions are not know yet, but the Colorado Republican said it will amount to a "universal fix" to all questions regarding pot legalization. Read more here.

Gardner had been using senatorial privilege to place holds on various administration nominees until he received assurances that the Trump administration would work to allow the untroubled legalization of pot in states that decide to do so. Today, he announced:

"Because of these commitments, I have informed the Administration that I will be lifting my remaining holds on Department of Justice nominees. My colleagues and I are continuing to work diligently on a bipartisan legislative solution that can pass Congress and head to the President's desk to deliver on his campaign position."​
So here we have Donald Trump, who is so terrible on so many issues and pretty damn good on others, moving forward on negotiating peace on the War on Pot. Nothing is over until the last non-violent offender is freed, but this is very good news.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/13/trump-announces-unprecedented-support-fo
.
.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,448
Likes
5,497
#29
As with any business, anyone has a right to own and operate a business. The conversion of this right into a privilege is unconstitutional and has already been decided by the courts.
With medical laws they can say they need to oversee the production (The state that is). With just rec laws, now they are saying it's legal. In doing so anyone should be able to grow at anytime and in any quantity. Your basically just a farmer growing a crop like any other farmer throwing a legal product.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#30
Colorado’s legal marijuana won’t be targeted by Jeff Sessions
Denver Post

U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner on Friday formally ended a three-month standoff with the Justice Department over federal marijuana law enforcement, saying he received assurances from President Donald Trump that the agency wouldn’t interfere with Colorado’s marijuana industry.

In an announcement met with caution by industry observers, Gardner said he wouldn’t block any more Senate-confirmable Justice nominees. He undertook that protest after a controversial January decision by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to void an Obama-era policy that generally left alone states that had legalized the drug.

The president affirmed his commitment to “protect Colorado” and went a step further by getting behind the idea a federal bill that would ensure the safety of marijuana regimes in states across the nation, Gardner said.

More winning
BF
 

D-FENZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,686
Likes
3,528
#31
Then what will AG Jeff Sessions do with all his free time? Double down on his illegal asset seizure programs?

The guy is an egg headed jagov.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
12,238
Likes
19,929
Location
ORYGUN
#32
Where in the Constitution does it give the federal gov. the power over a/the states to prohibit using, growing or possession of pot?
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
959
Likes
2,200
Location
Northern Arizona
#33
Where in the Constitution does it give the federal gov. the power over a/the states to prohibit using, growing or possession of pot?
It must be in the same clause of the Constitution that allows Trump to bomb another country without a Declaration of War from congress.:bombs 8:
.
.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,783
Likes
6,211
Location
Seattle
#34
doesn't all the power that DC has appropriated from the states come from some 'commerce' clause?
 

ZZZZZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
959
Likes
2,200
Location
Northern Arizona
#35
doesn't all the power that DC has appropriated from the states come from some 'commerce' clause?
That's the excuse they use, but that's not what the Commerce Clause was intended for.

The Commerce Clause: Not a Micromanaging Tool


The commerce clause to the Constitution is one that is possibly most-often used to justify federal action.
The Congress shall have Power…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.​
The misapplication of the commerce clause stems from a redefinition of the word “commerce.” The Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of commerce to the point that in today’s legal parlance, it essentially means “all economic activity.” As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent in the medical marijuana case Raich v. Gonzales, under the courts’ expansive definition of commerce power, the federal government has “no meaningful limits.”

To properly understand the Constitution, one must understand what words and phrases meant to the framers and ratifiers. Using modern definitions can sometimes change the meaning of the document, an unacceptable interpretive methodology. James Madison warned against this.
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense!​
So, what did “commerce mean in the founding era? Simply put, commerce pertains to trade, or the act of exchanging goods. Commerce power also extended to regulation of the transportation system, shipping, and interstate and international waterways. But the Commerce Clause was never intended to give the federal government the power to regulate manufacturing, agriculture, labor laws, health care or a host of other activities claimed by progressives.

Constitutional scholar and author of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Meant and Said Robert Natelson examined the legal constitutional meaning of commerce. He scoured 17th and 18th century case law, legal works and legal dictionaries, as well as lay usage of the word. His research showed commerce was almost exclusively used in connection with trade – not the broader range of economic activities the Supreme Court uses. In a scholarly paper titled The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause, Natelson writes:
Commerce benefited agriculture and manufacture by circulating their products, but it did not include agriculture or manufacture. Jurists compared commerce to an enormous circulatory system, carrying articles throughout the entire Body Politic, as the blood in the human body carries oxygen and nourishment. Thus, like the American Founders, English lawyers and judges understood the tight interrelationship between commerce and other parts of the economy, yet they were careful to distinguish them conceptually.​
To read more about the founding era meaning of commerce, click HERE.
The construction of the commerce clause makes it clear that Congress has the same commerce regulating power over interstate commerce (trade across the borders of a state) as it does over foreign trade. That means the federal government can theoretically ban trade of a given product across state lines. But the purpose behind delegating Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce was not to restrict trade, but to keep it free and open.

The framers wanted the federal government to possess the power to prevent states from inhibiting trade through levying tariffs on neighbors. For instance, to have the power to stop Tennessee from slapping a fee on bourbon imported from Kentucky. It was a power intended to protect free and robust trade. The commerce clause also gave the federal government the authority to pursue a unified trade policy with other nations, as opposed to each state enforcing its own policy.

James Madison explained the intent of the commerce clause in a letter to J. C. Cabell dated February 13, 1825.
I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power…Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.​
The federal government was never intended to micromanage the economy through wage laws, labor laws, agricultural regulations, industrial regulations, healthcare laws and the like. Those powers were left to the states and the people. When the federal government regulates the economy and it does not directly relate to trade, it is usurping power and violating the Constitution.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/07/the-commerce-clause-not-a-micromanaging-tool/
.
.
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,302
Likes
3,530
Location
On a mail train.
#36
Older article but relevant to the discussion....




Laws
ACT!
Donate

Commerce Clause

Why Can’t ‘Cannabis’ Be In The Commerce Clause?
by Allen St. Pierre, Former NORML Executive Director
July 18, 2011

by Byron Andrus, NORML Foundation legal intern and second year law student at George Mason University School of Law

Recently, NORML supported the efforts of Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) in their sponsorship of H.R. 2306, ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011’, a House bill which seeks to remove federal penalties for marijuana offenses and thus allow for the individual states to set their own marijuana policies. While the bill will likely fail to reach even a committee hearing due to the efforts of another Texas Republican and Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, its introduction has raised some interesting constitutional questions and has given more food for thought to legal scholars interested in the oft-forgotten 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment reads rather plainly: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Essentially, this means that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, which are very limited in number, are left to the state legislatures. This may seem obvious, but judges and constitutional scholars have continuously debated about what “the powers not delegated to the United States” are.

Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who grew marijuana plants on her property for her own medical use was participating in “interstate commerce.” Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, astutely observes, “no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.” This common sense reading of “interstate commerce” would prevent the federal government from harassing peaceful citizens who are in compliance with state laws, and is a good example of a “10th Amendment” approach to the issue of marijuana legalization.

The Founding Fathers took great pains to choose carefully the words they inserted into the text of the Constitution. Nowhere in the document is the federal government granted the power to regulate intrastate commerce (commerce within one state). Furthermore, “commerce” refers to transactions in which goods or services are exchanged. Ms. Raich did not intend to buy, sell, trade, or give away her marijuana, she only intended it to be used for her own medical purposes—despite this and the clear omission by the founders of a federal primacy regarding states’ economies under the 10th Amendment. The real world application of the Gonzales decision means that those with serious illnesses like Ms. Raich are not legally permitted to grow and consume their own medicine—even if state laws allow for such.

The Commerce Clause has also been invoked when armed federal agents decide to raid dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legally permitted to be sold. The latest memo from the Department of Justice, known as the ‘Cole Memo’, suggests that the federal government will continue to raid dispensaries, even ones that are operating in accordance with state laws. This contradicted a 2009 memo written by the former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, in which he suggested that federal resources should not be wasted on marijuana enforcement as long as dispensary owners remained in “clear and unambiguous” compliance with state law. This reversal in policy now suggests that the federal government can target those involved in the medical marijuana industry, even those in compliance with state law.

In addition to the constant threat of arrest and prosecution, the potential loss of one’s business creates a great deal of uncertainty in the markets of states where medical marijuana is legal. Investing in a dispensary has become a risky proposition, and it has led to dispensary owners already heavily invested in the business to wonder whether or not they will be able to open their doors. This uncertainty causes patients to go without their medicine and causes business owners to flounder under unclear regulations. Removing the federal penalties for marijuana offenses by passing H.R. 2306 would completely eliminate this problem, as patients and business owners would simply need to comply with state laws, no longer having to worry about getting their doors kicked in by federal agents. A “10th Amendment” approach to marijuana policy would finally ease the fear and uncertainty that are part and parcel of federal Marijuana Prohibition.

An expansive reading of the federal government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce seems to be at odds with the 10th Amendment. Since the federal government may not regulate intrastate commerce, it follows that this is a right reserved to the states. The division of powers in our federal system was intended to prevent an overreach of federal power. Unfortunately, the ever-expanding federal government now sees fit to regulate everything from the amount of water you can have in your toilet to what kind of light bulbs consumers can buy to what plants you may grow on your property—the laws of the states be damned if necessary.

H.R. 2306 puts forth the common sense proposition, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be the prerogative of each state to determine for itself whether or not to legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes—a tried and true, and constitutionally sound approach that previously worked to end the folly of another federal government overreach, Alcohol Prohibition. A return by federal judges to interpreting the plain meaning of “interstate commerce,” coupled with an emphasis on the 10th Amendment, would mark an excellent starting point in getting the federal government out of the way and allowing state governments to make their own informed decisions on marijuana policy

http://blog.norml.org/tag/commerce-clause/
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,302
Likes
3,530
Location
On a mail train.
#38
Ttazz , you are close to the truth of the matter. Especially in light of the Monsanto Bayer merger.

This is an older article that is trending negative to a monopolized seed model.

The world’s top 10 seed companies: who owns Nature?
Details Published: 31 January 2009


Twitter


ETC Group released a very useful 48-page report, “Who Owns Nature?” on corporate concentration in commercial food, farming, health, and the strategic push to commodify the planet's remaining natural resources. Here are some key extracts from the section about the seed industry. For the full report: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-owns-nature
“The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered.” – Keith Mudd, Organization for Competitive Markets, following Monsanto's decision to raise some GM maize seed prices by 35%.​
Who Owns Nature? The seed industry
Report from ETC Group (extracts only)
In the first half of the 20th century, seeds were overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers and public-sector plant breeders. In the decades since then, Gene Giants have used intellectual property laws to commodify the world seed supply – a strategy that aims to control plant germplasm and maximize profits by eliminating Farmers' Rights.
Today, the proprietary seed market accounts for a staggering share of the world's commercial seed supply. In less than three decades, a handful of multinational corporations have engineered a fast and furious corporate enclosure of the first link in the food chain.
According to Context Network, the proprietary seed market (that is, brand-name seed that is subject to exclusive monopoly – i.e., intellectual property), now accounts for 82% of the commercial seed market worldwide. In 2007, the global proprietary seed market was US$22,000 million. (The total commercial seed market was valued at $26,700 million in 2007.) The commercial seed market, of course, does not include farmer-saved seed.
The World's Top 10 Seed Companies

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-seed-companies-who-owns-nature