What if corporations aren't evil?

[Quantum Windbag]

This is about Monsato, so I put it in the CDZ to eliminate the outright flaming.

I would really like it if everyone read the whole blog post before they commented, but w all know that isn't going to happen, but I hope this will whet the appetites of the thinkers.

It all used to be so easy. There were the good guys, us, and there were the bad guys, them. Then I meandered into the issue of GMOs. That’s when everything became complicated. I support the use of transgenics for our food supply, simply because I trust the science behind it and because all my research has led me in that direction. What bothers me is the idea that at least tacitly, I find myself in agreement with and sometimes defending corporations. I hate corporations. They’re greedy, treat their workers like shit and have too much influence in our political system. All in all, aren’t very good citizens. Yet I find myself at times sort of defending corporations like Monsanto. I hate that.
And it gets worse. I agree with opinion pieces written by conservatives and folks from conservative and libertarian think tanks and op-eds by industry trade group representatives. It pains me to agree with a guy like Henry Miller who was a pimp for the tobacco companies, but on this issue he is right.
It all makes me uneasy and I can’t very well forward these articles to friends. They would immediately dismiss them as industry propaganda.
But here’s the thing. The fact that they may be conservative, libertarian and running dog lackeys of the oppressive bourgeoisie, they are actually correct on the issue of GMOs. And I can understand why many people don’t trust them. If I didn’t know what I know, I wouldn’t trust them either.
These guys may have motives that are less than altruistic, but they are, in a rare instance, using facts and evidence to bolster their case. What are the odds?
I think it’s because the science is the science. It’s solid, it’s known. They don’t have to buy off scientists. They don’t have to spin it. It’s a gift to industry pimps since they don’t have to lie. Of course they don’t lie, but overstate. They overplay their hand as corporations and their apologists do. New and Improved! This will save the world! It’s called advertising.
But, it still makes me feel queasy.

http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2014/04/28/gmos-make-strange-bedfellows-progressives-dilemma/

 

[pillars]

Corporations are neither good or evil. They're self-interested, and in the pursuit of self-interest may do both good and evil things. Trusting an entirely self-interested entity to self-police is stupid.

 

[oldfart]

This is about Monsato, so I put it in the CDZ to eliminate the outright flaming.

I would really like it if everyone read the whole blog post before they commented, but w all know that isn't going to happen, but I hope this will whet the appetites of the thinkers.

It all used to be so easy. There were the good guys, us, and there were the bad guys, them. Then I meandered into the issue of GMOs. That’s when everything became complicated. I support the use of transgenics for our food supply, simply because I trust the science behind it and because all my research has led me in that direction. What bothers me is the idea that at least tacitly, I find myself in agreement with and sometimes defending corporations. I hate corporations. They’re greedy, treat their workers like shit and have too much influence in our political system. All in all, aren’t very good citizens. Yet I find myself at times sort of defending corporations like Monsanto. I hate that.
And it gets worse. I agree with opinion pieces written by conservatives and folks from conservative and libertarian think tanks and op-eds by industry trade group representatives. It pains me to agree with a guy like Henry Miller who was a pimp for the tobacco companies, but on this issue he is right.
It all makes me uneasy and I can’t very well forward these articles to friends. They would immediately dismiss them as industry propaganda.
But here’s the thing. The fact that they may be conservative, libertarian and running dog lackeys of the oppressive bourgeoisie, they are actually correct on the issue of GMOs. And I can understand why many people don’t trust them. If I didn’t know what I know, I wouldn’t trust them either.
These guys may have motives that are less than altruistic, but they are, in a rare instance, using facts and evidence to bolster their case. What are the odds?
I think it’s because the science is the science. It’s solid, it’s known. They don’t have to buy off scientists. They don’t have to spin it. It’s a gift to industry pimps since they don’t have to lie. Of course they don’t lie, but overstate. They overplay their hand as corporations and their apologists do. New and Improved! This will save the world! It’s called advertising.
But, it still makes me feel queasy.

http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2014/04/28/gmos-make-strange-bedfellows-progressives-dilemma/

I did as you asked (and as I usually do anyway) and read the blog. It seems to me the essence is in this statement:

The url pretty much says it all. I’m a progressive contrarian. After spending decades in the belly of the left/liberal beast, I came to believe they could suffer from the same confirmation biases as the right. This belief has led many on my side of the fence think I’ve gone over to the darkside. Nothing can be further from the truth. I still maintain my progressive beliefs, but with the caveat, nonsense is nonsense

I confess to having been in the same position as the author on a number of occasions when liberal cant ran contrary to good science or good reason. In the 60s I discovered that I and most flower children were piss poor farmers, no matter how organic we wanted to grow our vegetables. No matter our dreams, we generally were failures at weaving and pottery. You could dabble for a while, but if Daddy wasn't writing big checks and you weren't selling pot on the side, you were in real danger of starvation. The free clinic was great for getting condoms and a shot of penicillin, but didn't help much when you discovered you were diabetic.

I did discover I was reasonably good at leatherwork and metalwork as long as I didn't try to be artistic; that a childhood spent helping my grandfather, who sold his farm in 1922 and had a big garden in town thereafter left me with a better than average ability to raise vegetables, especially with a 55 gallon drum filled with cow manure for the tomatoes. My sons turned out to be stunningly good as artists and craftsmen, and derived great pleasure from it while earning livings as anti-terrorist accountant and PPG research chemical engineer respectively.

I agree with the blogger that most of the time facts have a well-known liberal bias, mainly because so many on the right spend so much time denying science. It wasn't always so; fifty years ago the National Review was well reasoned and a good part of the Left was obviously on a bad acid trip. Role reversal is a *****.

Regarding Monsanto and GMOs, there are some disturbing issues here, especially with regard to agriculture which are not being well addressed. I'd put it about 85% for the advocates of GMOs and 15% for the critics. If we could just figure out how to incentivize Monsanto and other firms deal with the 15% of the issue and get the critics be more problem-solvers and less confrontational Luddites we could all pass the bong.

 

[OnePercenter]

Corporations are a necessary evil, and are only evil when you don't regulate them.

 

[Cassandro]

Corporations are created by state law to provide liability protection to owners/investors. Publicly traded corporations are governed by the SEC. As such, they can be held to any standards the government wishes to impose on them. Since direct political patronage is no longer allowed, corporations are the vehicles of choice to funnel public funds into private hands. The bigger the government, the bigger the patronage. Don't blame "corporations" for learning how to play the game.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations are neither good or evil. They're self-interested, and in the pursuit of self-interest may do both good and evil things. Trusting an entirely self-interested entity to self-police is stupid.

Yet you trust the government to self police.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is about Monsato, so I put it in the CDZ to eliminate the outright flaming.

I would really like it if everyone read the whole blog post before they commented, but w all know that isn't going to happen, but I hope this will whet the appetites of the thinkers.

It all used to be so easy. There were the good guys, us, and there were the bad guys, them. Then I meandered into the issue of GMOs. That’s when everything became complicated. I support the use of transgenics for our food supply, simply because I trust the science behind it and because all my research has led me in that direction. What bothers me is the idea that at least tacitly, I find myself in agreement with and sometimes defending corporations. I hate corporations. They’re greedy, treat their workers like shit and have too much influence in our political system. All in all, aren’t very good citizens. Yet I find myself at times sort of defending corporations like Monsanto. I hate that.
And it gets worse. I agree with opinion pieces written by conservatives and folks from conservative and libertarian think tanks and op-eds by industry trade group representatives. It pains me to agree with a guy like Henry Miller who was a pimp for the tobacco companies, but on this issue he is right.
It all makes me uneasy and I can’t very well forward these articles to friends. They would immediately dismiss them as industry propaganda.
But here’s the thing. The fact that they may be conservative, libertarian and running dog lackeys of the oppressive bourgeoisie, they are actually correct on the issue of GMOs. And I can understand why many people don’t trust them. If I didn’t know what I know, I wouldn’t trust them either.
These guys may have motives that are less than altruistic, but they are, in a rare instance, using facts and evidence to bolster their case. What are the odds?
I think it’s because the science is the science. It’s solid, it’s known. They don’t have to buy off scientists. They don’t have to spin it. It’s a gift to industry pimps since they don’t have to lie. Of course they don’t lie, but overstate. They overplay their hand as corporations and their apologists do. New and Improved! This will save the world! It’s called advertising.
But, it still makes me feel queasy.

http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2014/04/28/gmos-make-strange-bedfellows-progressives-dilemma/

I did as you asked (and as I usually do anyway) and read the blog. It seems to me the essence is in this statement:

The url pretty much says it all. I’m a progressive contrarian. After spending decades in the belly of the left/liberal beast, I came to believe they could suffer from the same confirmation biases as the right. This belief has led many on my side of the fence think I’ve gone over to the darkside. Nothing can be further from the truth. I still maintain my progressive beliefs, but with the caveat, nonsense is nonsense

I confess to having been in the same position as the author on a number of occasions when liberal cant ran contrary to good science or good reason. In the 60s I discovered that I and most flower children were piss poor farmers, no matter how organic we wanted to grow our vegetables. No matter our dreams, we generally were failures at weaving and pottery. You could dabble for a while, but if Daddy wasn't writing big checks and you weren't selling pot on the side, you were in real danger of starvation. The free clinic was great for getting condoms and a shot of penicillin, but didn't help much when you discovered you were diabetic.

I did discover I was reasonably good at leatherwork and metalwork as long as I didn't try to be artistic; that a childhood spent helping my grandfather, who sold his farm in 1922 and had a big garden in town thereafter left me with a better than average ability to raise vegetables, especially with a 55 gallon drum filled with cow manure for the tomatoes. My sons turned out to be stunningly good as artists and craftsmen, and derived great pleasure from it while earning livings as anti-terrorist accountant and PPG research chemical engineer respectively.

I agree with the blogger that most of the time facts have a well-known liberal bias, mainly because so many on the right spend so much time denying science. It wasn't always so; fifty years ago the National Review was well reasoned and a good part of the Left was obviously on a bad acid trip. Role reversal is a *****.

Regarding Monsanto and GMOs, there are some disturbing issues here, especially with regard to agriculture which are not being well addressed. I'd put it about 85% for the advocates of GMOs and 15% for the critics. If we could just figure out how to incentivize Monsanto and other firms deal with the 15% of the issue and get the critics be more problem-solvers and less confrontational Luddites we could all pass the bong.

I would like to know what issues you think weigh in favor of the critics because, frankly, I don't see them. GMOs have been around for centuries. Most of them were created by accident, whiteout any thought to the potential consequences. A good example of thatis the commercial banana crop which is in serious danger from a fungus.

"Devastating" fungus may mean end of days for top banana - CBS News

Yes, I know we don't know everything, but the benefits of GMO foods are real, and the risks exist even if we pretend that evolution has never wiped out a food crop.

 

[FA_Q2]

Corporations are a necessary evil, and are only evil when you don't regulate them.

corporations are no more evil or capable of being evil than a rock. Simple as that.

The advantage that we have is that corporations act in self interest and that can be counted on to accurately predict and control their behavior. Unfortunately, that reality has driven political powers to ensure that such companies funnel power and capitol to the government.


You see, the companies are simply doing what the government has incentivised them to do.

 

[Politico]

What if? They aren't evil.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The Left doesn't like capitalism and wants to promote an authoritarian, centralized federal bureaucracy at all times.

So it's ideologically obligated to demonize "corporations" at every opportunity. Of course, a "corporation" could be a grandmother running an Ebay business from her kitchen table, so they have to keep the term nice and vague.

Effective regulation (not the same as MORE regulation) is absolutely crucial, and maybe one day we'll have it. But we can count on the Left to demonize private industry at every turn. Their adoration of, and devotion to, government requires it.

.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If GMO's are good then why has Europe and Russia banned them completely? I do not trust GMO's and I would not care if Santa Claus delivered it to me instead of Monsanto. It isn't about Monsanto - although by having patent on seeds they would have the monopoly on food production. They know this. Is that evil? To have the monopoly on food? Yes, I believe it is.

 

[oldfart]

This is about Monsato, so I put it in the CDZ to eliminate the outright flaming.

I would really like it if everyone read the whole blog post before they commented, but w all know that isn't going to happen, but I hope this will whet the appetites of the thinkers.

http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/2014/04/28/gmos-make-strange-bedfellows-progressives-dilemma/

I did as you asked (and as I usually do anyway) and read the blog. It seems to me the essence is in this statement:

The url pretty much says it all. I’m a progressive contrarian. After spending decades in the belly of the left/liberal beast, I came to believe they could suffer from the same confirmation biases as the right. This belief has led many on my side of the fence think I’ve gone over to the darkside. Nothing can be further from the truth. I still maintain my progressive beliefs, but with the caveat, nonsense is nonsense

I confess to having been in the same position as the author on a number of occasions when liberal cant ran contrary to good science or good reason. In the 60s I discovered that I and most flower children were piss poor farmers, no matter how organic we wanted to grow our vegetables. No matter our dreams, we generally were failures at weaving and pottery. You could dabble for a while, but if Daddy wasn't writing big checks and you weren't selling pot on the side, you were in real danger of starvation. The free clinic was great for getting condoms and a shot of penicillin, but didn't help much when you discovered you were diabetic.

I did discover I was reasonably good at leatherwork and metalwork as long as I didn't try to be artistic; that a childhood spent helping my grandfather, who sold his farm in 1922 and had a big garden in town thereafter left me with a better than average ability to raise vegetables, especially with a 55 gallon drum filled with cow manure for the tomatoes. My sons turned out to be stunningly good as artists and craftsmen, and derived great pleasure from it while earning livings as anti-terrorist accountant and PPG research chemical engineer respectively.

I agree with the blogger that most of the time facts have a well-known liberal bias, mainly because so many on the right spend so much time denying science. It wasn't always so; fifty years ago the National Review was well reasoned and a good part of the Left was obviously on a bad acid trip. Role reversal is a *****.

Regarding Monsanto and GMOs, there are some disturbing issues here, especially with regard to agriculture which are not being well addressed. I'd put it about 85% for the advocates of GMOs and 15% for the critics. If we could just figure out how to incentivize Monsanto and other firms deal with the 15% of the issue and get the critics be more problem-solvers and less confrontational Luddites we could all pass the bong.

I would like to know what issues you think weigh in favor of the critics because, frankly, I don't see them. GMOs have been around for centuries. Most of them were created by accident, whiteout any thought to the potential consequences. A good example of thatis the commercial banana crop which is in serious danger from a fungus.

"Devastating" fungus may mean end of days for top banana - CBS News

Yes, I know we don't know everything, but the benefits of GMO foods are real, and the risks exist even if we pretend that evolution has never wiped out a food crop.

My concerns are a little broader than GMOs. My father's generation were all schoolteachers in my family, my grandfather's were farmers. Reducing biodiversity creates greater risks because, as in the case of bananas you cite, genetically identical plants sometimes cannot cope with challenges and you lose them all. That would have happened with Southern corn blight if it were not for the early efforts to grow wild and semi-wild grains to have the seed stock with genetic traits needed to produce GMO in response to these challenges. GMOs rest on a foundation of resources we are not doing enough to preserve.

There are also some issues with seed coatings, with the appropriateness of exporting seed stock to less developed countries which cannot naturally reproduce, the decreasing mineral content of soil and therefore food products over the last 100 years, accelerating in the last 40--50, and so forth that suggest be may be building more instability into the global food supply inadvertently. As I originally said, all of this is maybe 15% of the issue, it certainly is soluble, and given good public policy the research and agribusiness communities will be guided by Adam Sith's unseen hand to those solutions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If GMO's are good then why has Europe and Russia banned them completely? I do not trust GMO's and I would not care if Santa Claus delivered it to me instead of Monsanto. It isn't about Monsanto - although by having patent on seeds they would have the monopoly on food production. They know this. Is that evil? To have the monopoly on food? Yes, I believe it is.

Because they prefer to cater to fear than to use science to argue a point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did as you asked (and as I usually do anyway) and read the blog. It seems to me the essence is in this statement:

I confess to having been in the same position as the author on a number of occasions when liberal cant ran contrary to good science or good reason. In the 60s I discovered that I and most flower children were piss poor farmers, no matter how organic we wanted to grow our vegetables. No matter our dreams, we generally were failures at weaving and pottery. You could dabble for a while, but if Daddy wasn't writing big checks and you weren't selling pot on the side, you were in real danger of starvation. The free clinic was great for getting condoms and a shot of penicillin, but didn't help much when you discovered you were diabetic.

I did discover I was reasonably good at leatherwork and metalwork as long as I didn't try to be artistic; that a childhood spent helping my grandfather, who sold his farm in 1922 and had a big garden in town thereafter left me with a better than average ability to raise vegetables, especially with a 55 gallon drum filled with cow manure for the tomatoes. My sons turned out to be stunningly good as artists and craftsmen, and derived great pleasure from it while earning livings as anti-terrorist accountant and PPG research chemical engineer respectively.

I agree with the blogger that most of the time facts have a well-known liberal bias, mainly because so many on the right spend so much time denying science. It wasn't always so; fifty years ago the National Review was well reasoned and a good part of the Left was obviously on a bad acid trip. Role reversal is a *****.

Regarding Monsanto and GMOs, there are some disturbing issues here, especially with regard to agriculture which are not being well addressed. I'd put it about 85% for the advocates of GMOs and 15% for the critics. If we could just figure out how to incentivize Monsanto and other firms deal with the 15% of the issue and get the critics be more problem-solvers and less confrontational Luddites we could all pass the bong.

I would like to know what issues you think weigh in favor of the critics because, frankly, I don't see them. GMOs have been around for centuries. Most of them were created by accident, whiteout any thought to the potential consequences. A good example of thatis the commercial banana crop which is in serious danger from a fungus.

"Devastating" fungus may mean end of days for top banana - CBS News

Yes, I know we don't know everything, but the benefits of GMO foods are real, and the risks exist even if we pretend that evolution has never wiped out a food crop.

My concerns are a little broader than GMOs. My father's generation were all schoolteachers in my family, my grandfather's were farmers. Reducing biodiversity creates greater risks because, as in the case of bananas you cite, genetically identical plants sometimes cannot cope with challenges and you lose them all. That would have happened with Southern corn blight if it were not for the early efforts to grow wild and semi-wild grains to have the seed stock with genetic traits needed to produce GMO in response to these challenges. GMOs rest on a foundation of resources we are not doing enough to preserve.

There are also some issues with seed coatings, with the appropriateness of exporting seed stock to less developed countries which cannot naturally reproduce, the decreasing mineral content of soil and therefore food products over the last 100 years, accelerating in the last 40--50, and so forth that suggest be may be building more instability into the global food supply inadvertently. As I originally said, all of this is maybe 15% of the issue, it certainly is soluble, and given good public policy the research and agribusiness communities will be guided by Adam Sith's unseen hand to those solutions.

I knew about those issues, I just wasn't looking at it the same way you are. It isn't as if the scientists are unaware of those dangers, which is why they are looking into ways to deal with the risks.

The thing is, we cannot just pretend that, if we do nothing, the universe is going to make sure humans survive. You actually farmed, so you know how hard it is. The people who insist we can survive without the research being done on GMOs are just as foolish as the people who insist that God will provide for everyone.

 

[pillars]

Yet you trust the government to self police.

In a constitutional republic, the government is policed by the voters.

 

[OnePercenter]

Corporations are a necessary evil, and are only evil when you don't regulate them.

corporations are no more evil or capable of being evil than a rock. Simple as that.

The advantage that we have is that corporations act in self interest and that can be counted on to accurately predict and control their behavior. Unfortunately, that reality has driven political powers to ensure that such companies funnel power and capitol to the government.

You see, the companies are simply doing what the government has incentivised them to do.

Which party is responsible for the vast majority of incentivizing? Hint: It's not the Democrats.

 

[FA_Q2]

Corporations are a necessary evil, and are only evil when you don't regulate them.

corporations are no more evil or capable of being evil than a rock. Simple as that.

The advantage that we have is that corporations act in self interest and that can be counted on to accurately predict and control their behavior. Unfortunately, that reality has driven political powers to ensure that such companies funnel power and capitol to the government.

You see, the companies are simply doing what the government has incentivised them to do.

Which party is responsible for the vast majority of incentivizing? Hint: It's not the Democrats.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. The left has always found the practice acceptable. On the right, you find the problem very prevalent but its very concept is counter to what the right is supposed to stand for.

It is just too bad that the right does not stand for anything anymore.

 

[Pogo]

Corporations are neither good or evil. They're self-interested, and in the pursuit of self-interest may do both good and evil things. Trusting an entirely self-interested entity to self-police is stupid.

Yet you trust the government to self police.

Government is not by design either self-interested or dedicated to its own monetary profit; that's the difference. The same reason Romney's "business experience" was never a valid basis for qualification: government and business are dedicated to mutually antagonistic objectives.

How do you infer what the poster trusts? Or are we just making it up again?

 

[Pogo]

If GMO's are good then why has Europe and Russia banned them completely? I do not trust GMO's and I would not care if Santa Claus delivered it to me instead of Monsanto. It isn't about Monsanto - although by having patent on seeds they would have the monopoly on food production. They know this. Is that evil? To have the monopoly on food? Yes, I believe it is.

Vermont just passed a GMO labeling law. They expected to be sued, and they will be.

To mix a historic metaphor, "Freedom of speech, but some speech is more equal than others"...

 

[BobPlumb]

Yet you trust the government to self police.

In a constitutional republic, the government is policed by the voters.

True, but it often takes, 2, 4, or 6 years or more for the police (the voters) to respond to a call.