What if corporations aren't evil?

[BobPlumb]

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?

Government is not by design either self-interest.............

I call bullshit on that. What percentage of politicians are not motivated mostly by the self interest of winning the next election and will sell their souls to the devil to do so? How many politicians some how become multi millionaires because of the power of their office?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Government is not by design either self-interest.............

I call bullshit on that. What percentage of politicians are not motivated mostly by the self interest of winning the next election and will sell their souls to the devil to do so? How many politicians some how become multi millionaires because of the power of their office?

Those are politicians -- people. The same ingredient that makes up corporations -- people. But the institution of government isn't designed for self-enrichment. The institution of a corporation is.

 

[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.

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?

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

 

[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.

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"...

There was a link in the OP article explaining why labeling of GMOs is not a simple issue. There are a lot of cost involved in it, and it will drive up the cost of all food, not just GMO food.

So where's the cost you ask? Well, every farmer in the region is hauling grain usually around the same time... to the same group of elevators. Hopefully you read my blog on seed choice last year and realize that all farmers determine their own purchases for seed and we don't all grow the same thing. In fact, we grow 3-4 different varieties of corn ourselves. Why? Because we match the varieties of corn to our soil types. That's called good stewardship and good business practice.

The food supply chain in the United States relies on a system of commingling, grain delivered to the elevator by farmers throughout the region. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, nearly a half million of which grew corn in 2012. In a not very good growing year, Maryland farmers produce 53 million bushels of corn.

If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, we're talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain. What none of these labeling laws is clear about either is how to achieve this segregation? Should it be segregated by trait? by variety? both? The more layers of segregation, the more infrastructure is required and the more the costs escalate.

Segregation is costly. We know because we do it every year, year in and year out, and have for years. We do it because we get paid a premium for ensuring that the specialty grains and seeds we grow are "identity preserved", very much like the certified organic process, involving higher management, higher tracking, and systems in place to ensure that the grains and seeds are genetically consistent and true to their traits, of highest quality meaning they are uniform in size, shape, color, free of weed seed and contamination. We will have 900 acres of grains and seeds this year that will require some protocol for identity preservation. They will be tested for the presence of GMO and tested to ensure that they are genetically consistent to parent seeds. This requires us to use some of our grain tanks for segregation. It requires us to do more "housekeeping", cleaning equipment, trucks, trailers, planters, harvesters, grain bins, etc... all along the food supply chain to ensure that we have preserved the identity of that crop. It is an inherently more costly system.

The Foodie Farmer: The Costs of GMO Labeling

But the government knows best, and if a few people starve to death to protect us from a non existent danger, what does it matter in the long run?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Government is not by design either self-interest.............

I call bullshit on that. What percentage of politicians are not motivated mostly by the self interest of winning the next election and will sell their souls to the devil to do so? How many politicians some how become multi millionaires because of the power of their office?

Those are politicians -- people. The same ingredient that makes up corporations -- people. But the institution of government isn't designed for self-enrichment. The institution of a corporation is.

That must be why the government never collects taxes, tools, user fees, tariffs...

Shall I go on, or do you see the problem with your position yet?

 

[KissMy]

Some corporations can be a good tool, but they are not people & should not be treated as such. Corporate executives & investors are people & should be taxed at the same rate as payroll employees. Carried interest executive pay should be banned again as it had been before republicans created the loophole for their cronies.

The same rules should apply equally to all people, business & corps. The problem is that here in the USA politically connected use their corps suck tax money from all the rest of us hard working people. We are forced by government taxation at gunpoint to subsidize the privileged few rich elite on wall-street & in government with our money.

The connected elite use government & corporate veil's to screw us citizens through taxes & higher prices. Mitt Romney & Monsanto are prime examples of screwing us this way, yet the idiots wanted to make him president. The republicans are clueless tools.

Monsanto majorly polluted large parts of the USA. The government had to perform tax payer funded clean-up of this mess. Monsanto was supposed to pay for or do the clean-up, but this would have cost them all their money & they may have had to sell off their prized assets (genetics, science, seeds) to responsible corporations. So instead they hired a powerful politican/presidential candidate (George Romney) son who was Mitt Romney right out of school for a $million to get them out of paying for the damage they caused. Romney used his political clout to get the government to hold off on Monsanto while Mitt Romney helped them to shelter their money. So Monsanto formed another corporation named Solutia. They put all of their chemical assets that the government said caused the pollution into that Solutia corp & spun it off to unsuspecting investors, pension funds, etc.

They reorganized Monsanto, all it's money & clean assets into this new Monsanto. Now the money was safe & in the clear. Solutia corp went bankrupt screwing investors & the government made us tax payers pay for their Super Fund Clean-Up. On top of that they made a lot of their profits off the tax payers, by selling harmful chemicals like "Agent Orange" to the military.

Instead of having to sell their assets & go bankrupt, Monsanto took that money & bought up the competition. Now they own most of the seeds that grows the worlds food supply. This monopoly could not have happened without "pay to play government assistance" by the Romney's. This scam is why you pay 400% more for food & more taxes. Enjoy the high prices & taxes & thank a republican voter for it.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Thats why you vote out people who dont do the job.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

You keep missing the point that the government can be voted out. Inherently its more trustworthy than an entity you have no control over. The fact that the government can be voted out should tell you the point is you trust no entity you lack any control over.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

Actually the fact that you keep plugging in things to posts that were never in there proves that you have no concept of what reading is.

No, government by design is not interested in power; politicians are. Government cannot be interested in power, because it IS power. Government, by design, is concerned with the welfare of the people. Which is why I draw a contrast against the corporation, which work to exploit the people (its customer base) for its own gain.

 

[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"...

There was a link in the OP article explaining why labeling of GMOs is not a simple issue. There are a lot of cost involved in it, and it will drive up the cost of all food, not just GMO food.

So where's the cost you ask? Well, every farmer in the region is hauling grain usually around the same time... to the same group of elevators. Hopefully you read my blog on seed choice last year and realize that all farmers determine their own purchases for seed and we don't all grow the same thing. In fact, we grow 3-4 different varieties of corn ourselves. Why? Because we match the varieties of corn to our soil types. That's called good stewardship and good business practice.

The food supply chain in the United States relies on a system of commingling, grain delivered to the elevator by farmers throughout the region. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, nearly a half million of which grew corn in 2012. In a not very good growing year, Maryland farmers produce 53 million bushels of corn.

If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, we're talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain. What none of these labeling laws is clear about either is how to achieve this segregation? Should it be segregated by trait? by variety? both? The more layers of segregation, the more infrastructure is required and the more the costs escalate.

Segregation is costly. We know because we do it every year, year in and year out, and have for years. We do it because we get paid a premium for ensuring that the specialty grains and seeds we grow are "identity preserved", very much like the certified organic process, involving higher management, higher tracking, and systems in place to ensure that the grains and seeds are genetically consistent and true to their traits, of highest quality meaning they are uniform in size, shape, color, free of weed seed and contamination. We will have 900 acres of grains and seeds this year that will require some protocol for identity preservation. They will be tested for the presence of GMO and tested to ensure that they are genetically consistent to parent seeds. This requires us to use some of our grain tanks for segregation. It requires us to do more "housekeeping", cleaning equipment, trucks, trailers, planters, harvesters, grain bins, etc... all along the food supply chain to ensure that we have preserved the identity of that crop. It is an inherently more costly system.

The Foodie Farmer: The Costs of GMO Labeling

But the government knows best, and if a few people starve to death to protect us from a non existent danger, what does it matter in the long run?

And I'm sure the food industry's interest in suing Vermont is to nobly protect the consumer from higher prices. Just as I'm sure the Tooth Fairy is real.

 

[Pogo]

Some corporations can be a good tool, but they are not people & should not be treated as such. Corporate executives & investors are people & should be taxed at the same rate as payroll employees. Carried interest executive pay should be banned again as it had been before republicans created the loophole for their cronies.

The same rules should apply equally to all people, business & corps. The problem is that here in the USA politically connected use their corps suck tax money from all the rest of us hard working people. We are forced by government taxation at gunpoint to subsidize the privileged few rich elite on wall-street & in government with our money.

The connected elite use government & corporate veil's to screw us citizens through taxes & higher prices. Mitt Romney & Monsanto are prime examples of screwing us this way, yet the idiots wanted to make him president. The republicans are clueless tools.

Monsanto majorly polluted large parts of the USA. The government had to perform tax payer funded clean-up of this mess. Monsanto was supposed to pay for or do the clean-up, but this would have cost them all their money & they may have had to sell off their prized assets (genetics, science, seeds) to responsible corporations. So instead they hired a powerful politican/presidential candidate (George Romney) son who was Mitt Romney right out of school for a $million to get them out of paying for the damage they caused. Romney used his political clout to get the government to hold off on Monsanto while Mitt Romney helped them to shelter their money. So Monsanto formed another corporation named Solutia. They put all of their chemical assets that the government said caused the pollution into that Solutia corp & spun it off to unsuspecting investors, pension funds, etc.

They reorganized Monsanto, all it's money & clean assets into this new Monsanto. Now the money was safe & in the clear. Solutia corp went bankrupt screwing investors & the government made us tax payers pay for their Super Fund Clean-Up.

Instead of having to sell their assets & go bankrupt, Monsanto took that money & bought up the competition. Now they own most of the seeds that grows the worlds food supply. This monopoly could not have happened without "pay to play government assistance" by the Romney's. This scam is why you pay 400% more for food & more taxes. Enjoy the high prices & taxes & thank a republican voter for it.

They've also done stuff like -- buying the leading bee research company after it didn't like what its research showed about the effect of GMO on bees.

------- purely to protect the consumer from paying more for bee research, of course... what possible other motivation could they have....

 

[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.

Thats why you vote out people who dont do the job.

As someone else already pointed out, politicians are not the government, which is why there is so little actual change in government policy even though we get a new group of politicians every few years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

You keep missing the point that the government can be voted out. Inherently its more trustworthy than an entity you have no control over. The fact that the government can be voted out should tell you the point is you trust no entity you lack any control over.

When was the last time you voted out the guy at the DMV office who spends more time playing video games than he does helping people?

By the way, what does any of this have to do with the OP? Do you have a pathological need to defend the government?

 

[BobPlumb]

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?

Government is not by design either self-interest.............

I call bullshit on that. What percentage of politicians are not motivated mostly by the self interest of winning the next election and will sell their souls to the devil to do so? How many politicians some how become multi millionaires because of the power of their office?

Those are politicians -- people. The same ingredient that makes up corporations -- people. But the institution of government isn't designed for self-enrichment. The institution of a corporation is.

That is an interesting point. Now all we have to do is remove all those evil people from goverment. We can replace them with a computer.

 

[srlip]

so form a corporation and create your own niche, it's SO easy, you know. you are stupid for not doing it long ago.

 

[BobPlumb]

It is true that companies......corporations are looking out for their own self interest which is usually to earn a profit. The best way to do this is to provide products that are benificial to their perspective customers.

The over regulation of corporations by goverment has lead to incestual relationships.....crony capitalism.

 

[Asclepias]

Yet you trust the government to self police.

Thats why you vote out people who dont do the job.

As someone else already pointed out, politicians are not the government, which is why there is so little actual change in government policy even though we get a new group of politicians every few years.

Politicians use the government to effect change. The change their constituents voted them in for. The process of changing policy is inherently slow due to our 3 tiered system. I thought everyone knew that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

Actually the fact that you keep plugging in things to posts that were never in there proves that you have no concept of what reading is.

No, government by design is not interested in power; politicians are. Government cannot be interested in power, because it IS power. Government, by design, is concerned with the welfare of the people. Which is why I draw a contrast against the corporation, which work to exploit the people (its customer base) for its own gain.

I didn't plug anything into your post. I responded to a poster that said that trusting a self interested entity to self regulate is stupid by pointing out that people actually expect government to self regulate. You then tired to argue that that the government is not self interested by declaring that it it isn't. You neglected to provide any actual argument to defend that premise, but I treated it respectfully out of deference to the CDZ.

Now you are declaring, again without any actual attempt to defend you premise, that I am simply wrong because the government is already what it is interested in. The part about that that really makes me laugh is that I am sure that you wouldn't have a problem if someone claimed that all a corporation like Exxon, or Monsanto, was interested in was profit, even though Exxon already has more money than it can possibly use, you wouldn't bat an eye.

Care to explain how the mere fact that the government has power somehow proves they don't want more power, yet the same standard doesn't apply to corporations? IS there some sort of magic formula that applies that I am completely unaware of? If goverenmnt is already power, and doesn't want more, how do you explain the fact that the government keeps getting more powerful? Why do governments become tyrannies if government is not interested in power?

If government is interested in the welfare of people how do you explain the fact that our government routinely does things that are detrimental to the general welfare? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually allow people to help each other than to throw obstacles up in the way?

Houston permit rule stops couple's effort to feed homeless - Houston Chronicle

If all it is interested in is people's welfare why does it force people to tear down a perfectly good bleacher?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highs...superior-to-softball-bleachers-210604955.html

Do you see the problem here, or are you going to continue to pretend that your ability to type something is absolute proof it is true? Frankly, I hope you actually debate me, but I am going to ignore you if you simply make unsupported declarations in this thread.

 

[Asclepias]

Government, by design, is interested in power. That is why it keeps growing, and expanding its regulatory oversight, and then fining companies. The fact that you trust a power hungry bureaucracy to self regulate just proves that you really have no concept of the problem.

You keep missing the point that the government can be voted out. Inherently its more trustworthy than an entity you have no control over. The fact that the government can be voted out should tell you the point is you trust no entity you lack any control over.

When was the last time you voted out the guy at the DMV office who spends more time playing video games than he does helping people?

By the way, what does any of this have to do with the OP? Do you have a pathological need to defend the government?

What does your question have to do with voting for politicians? You made a silly statement and I called you on it. If you dont like that then you should try thinking a little harder before throwing out a half baked opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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"...

There was a link in the OP article explaining why labeling of GMOs is not a simple issue. There are a lot of cost involved in it, and it will drive up the cost of all food, not just GMO food.

So where's the cost you ask? Well, every farmer in the region is hauling grain usually around the same time... to the same group of elevators. Hopefully you read my blog on seed choice last year and realize that all farmers determine their own purchases for seed and we don't all grow the same thing. In fact, we grow 3-4 different varieties of corn ourselves. Why? Because we match the varieties of corn to our soil types. That's called good stewardship and good business practice.

The food supply chain in the United States relies on a system of commingling, grain delivered to the elevator by farmers throughout the region. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, nearly a half million of which grew corn in 2012. In a not very good growing year, Maryland farmers produce 53 million bushels of corn.

If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, we're talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain. What none of these labeling laws is clear about either is how to achieve this segregation? Should it be segregated by trait? by variety? both? The more layers of segregation, the more infrastructure is required and the more the costs escalate.

Segregation is costly. We know because we do it every year, year in and year out, and have for years. We do it because we get paid a premium for ensuring that the specialty grains and seeds we grow are "identity preserved", very much like the certified organic process, involving higher management, higher tracking, and systems in place to ensure that the grains and seeds are genetically consistent and true to their traits, of highest quality meaning they are uniform in size, shape, color, free of weed seed and contamination. We will have 900 acres of grains and seeds this year that will require some protocol for identity preservation. They will be tested for the presence of GMO and tested to ensure that they are genetically consistent to parent seeds. This requires us to use some of our grain tanks for segregation. It requires us to do more "housekeeping", cleaning equipment, trucks, trailers, planters, harvesters, grain bins, etc... all along the food supply chain to ensure that we have preserved the identity of that crop. It is an inherently more costly system.

The Foodie Farmer: The Costs of GMO Labeling

But the government knows best, and if a few people starve to death to protect us from a non existent danger, what does it matter in the long run?

And I'm sure the food industry's interest in suing Vermont is to nobly protect the consumer from higher prices. Just as I'm sure the Tooth Fairy is real.

Is that an attempt to actually debate, or simply an acknowledgement that you don't have an argument to defend your position?