--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jyouells2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > [...] > > > > > > If on the other hand, they took some internal assets, created > > these > > > > > > 3rd world country greenhouses, produced several years of real > > > > > > earnings, demonstrated that the venture was highly scalable, > > > then they > > > > > > could realistically talk to stock underwriters about a public > > > > > offering. > > > > > > > > > > They appear to be doing this, at least to some extent. > > > > > > > > Other than the FF greenhouse, are you aware of others. Wasn't there > > > > one in Missouri? Did that go under or is it still viable? Are you > > > > aware of any tangible, on the ground (not on paper) operating > > > > greenhouses in 3rd world countries? > > > > > > > ***snip *** > > > > Is the plan to jet the fresh and perishable produce into > > > > developed country's urban centers? > > > > > > The plan may be to attract upwardly mobile environmentalists with > > > money to invest? Nah, couldn't be... > > > > Perhaps that is who they are seeking as investors. I am asking another > > question. Who is going to buy the produce grown in 3rd world > > countries? Some one has to actually be willing to buy the organic > > veggies at quite a high price, in order to produce the revenues to > > produce the earnings flow that investors will demand. > > Depending on how you define "organic," it may not be any more expensive than normal > (American-style) farming practices in the 3rd World.
It may be that "natural" farming methods, without fertilizer and pesticides, using animal wastes, mulching and worms as a "fertilzer base, (which may or may not meet US legal definitions of "organic"), may not be much more expensive toproduce, particularly factoringin the higher quality of the crop. My point about high pricing in the MGH (M greenhouse) plan was not based on production cost drivers, but that their revenue projections appear to be based on quite high prices (higher than current health food store "organics --which in my experience can be sometimes 2-3x conventiontional) -- and an assumption that the market will pay such. The MGH high price assumption is based on admittedly sparse data points: TMO pricing of "organic" honey, of MAV products, yagyas and TM itself, antecdotal evidence that the FF GH crop prices were higher than normal "organics", the propensity of the TMO to price at extraordinary levels -- independent of any demand analysis, etc. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
