Dedicated to my sparring partner AGRONOMIST
(NEW YORK, USA, September 26, 2008/African Press Organization (APO)/ — Opening remarks by H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann
President of the General Assembly)
The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people , has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year.
At the same time , in response to the financial crisis, major hedge funds have shifted millions of dollars into agricultural products. These funds control 60 per cent of the supply of wheat and other basic grains. Most of these crops are purchased as “futures”. In other words, speculators have been increasingly active in food-related financial markets.
Consider also “we (in Aust) throw away more than $5.2 Billion dollars worth of food and drink each year” (p103 “Affluenza” Hammilton & Denniss) That is in excess of “½ billion on exercise equiptment and hardly used gym memberships” and the billions spent on back of the cupboard nearly unused parefenalia (p104 et al Affluenza”

Dear examinator,

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.panna.org/mag/fall2008/hunger/world-food-system

It's an article by Heather Pilatic, entitled,
"Food is for Eating, Not Profiteering."

In it she states:

" Over the last four decades,
international development projects
and trade policy regimes have effectively dismantled
agricultural self sufficiency and smallholder farming
in the Global South while positioning large agribusiness
corporations to profit from controlling more and more
of the world's food system

Today, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill
control 90% of the world's grain trade. Chemical giant
Monsanto controls one-fifth of seed production while
Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, and BASF control half of
the total agrochemical market.

This kind of corporate consolidation pays handsomely.
Since the beginning of the world food crises in 2005
ADM's profits have soared 73%, Cargill's are up to 138%,
and Bunge's increased by 105%"

Pilatic confirms that, "food prices have skyrocketed ...
to unprecedented and unsustainable levels...the net result
is that the world's poor have been priced out of the
food market, throwing nearly a billion people
who already had insufficient access to food into acute
crisis..."

However she says that solutions do exist.
"More than 400 experts spent the past four years
gathering ideas on how to ensure that agriculture
addresses world hunger, in April 2008, they laid out
their analyses in the International Assessment of
Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for
Development (AASTD).

Endorsed by 58 contires, this
report calls for investment in small-scale ecological
farming. Emphasizes the need for fair trade; and
urges approaches that protect people's rights to
democratically determine food and agricultural
policies."

Whether anyone pays any attention to the report
remains to be seen.

Gee, food is being treated and traded like a common commodity?

What sacrilege.

Bugsy,
I recommend you read the question and its trick word'profiteering'. No one is saying that it's wrong to trade. The point is that when the President of UN general assembly says it with all his resources maybe... just maybe we should think about it...just a bit.
Eat and enjoy
Examinator.ant

I was under the impression that the worst Australia had to worry about on this front was the handful (so far) of farmers who've sold their souls to Monsanto, selling their neighbours' souls in the process.

Someone recently alerted me to the fact that a well known frozen food brand (Birds Eye from memory, but I could be wrong) is still promoting their product as Australan grown, which is great, but the farms are owned by Sputnik or Slotnik or whatever his name his. This is the man who drove hundreds, if not thousands, of American family farms to the wall with his corporate farming model. These are the farms which supply chains like McDonalds and can easily afford to undercut local suppliers for supermarket chains.

They own everything along the production chain, from the dirt to the processing factories to the storage and transport infrastructure, and have no qualms about chemicals in fertilizers or insecticides, the manner in which they're applied, or where the run off goes.

Operations like that seem to make our often sentimental attachment to farmers worthwhile.

Trading in food futures and hedging has been around since Roman times.

Farmers hedge their crops to guarantee a price so they can get loans. Seed companies do the same to guarantee sales etc.

Unless someone can show that somewhere people are making huge profits by distorting the market, then there is no profiteering. That the market is not socially aware or benefit everyone equally, does not mean that it is rigged.

This post is based on ignorance.

The ag commodity market has changed since sept 26, now wheat and barley prices are half the value they were this time last year, and that's with a collapsed Aussie dollar.

Poor returns are destined to curb production, a much more reliable way to cause starvation than the affordability of food.

Foxy rightly points out that there are only a handful of chemical and seed companies to deal with full stop. Why dealing with Monsanto specifically is a problem is a trifle naive. Big companies have the research and development funding that can have real impact, I wish it were otherwise but that is reality. They can only make money when their product has value for the farmer.

The IAASTD call for small scale ecological farming will be warmly welcomed by those who have to return to the country to tend the plots. I look forward to being a landlord.

examinator, the proximate causes of the recent spike in food commodity prices was George W Bush’s energy independence scheme, couple with severe droughts in several major grain exporting countries, Australia included. The consequence of providing what was effectively a subsidy for ethanol drove up the price of corn due to extra demand. This also effectively soaked up the existing pool of coarse grains on the market for animal feed. The result was a shortage of grains and so higher prices because supply could not keep up with demand. Corn farmers responded by increasing the acreage of corn, in the process increasing the demand for fertilizers and, because they grow RoundupReady corn in the US, the demand for glyphosate. Higher demand with no more supply leads to higher prices.

As a response to increased food commodity prices, farmers have sown more land to food crops and increasing production. This is now driving food prices down. The credit crisis is also reducing demand for fuels and reducing the prices of fertilizers.

I don’t believe that being President of the UN General Assembly of Foreign Minister in the Sandanista government automatically results in a clear understanding of agriculture or trade. D'Escoto is wrong if he is implying that a handful of multinational companies have control of agriculture. Even in the US, there are more than 200 seed companies selling corn commercially. Many are small, but they still exist and meet a significant portion of the market.

At the end of the day, a company will only be as successful as its products. If it markets seed farmers want to grow, you can expect its profits to increase. If seed from one company is too expensive for farmers to buy, they will go elsewhere. If you don’t want supply and demand dictating the market place, what other system should there be and how would it produce price signals?

Shaddow minister,
Denial is no answer to anything did you read the quote from the President of the UN general Assembly? I took it from the source document... copy of his speach. Are you saying he is ignorant? fair crack of the whip!
try http://www.competitivemarkets.com
Read the proveable facts in foxy's post from the same conference.
Your comment remind me of the old saying "there is none so blind as he who WILL not see".
Prove to me that these quotes are wrong!

not only is this post based on ignorance, it is also pointless. a people without democracy should confine themselves to discussions of sports and celebrity.

Examinator,

All I see is the futile banging on the anti globalisation drum yet again.

Lets review the last decade or so:

When genetic engineering first started the greens threw a hissy fit and managed to block all research in most countries. The USA being the major exception, but even here such onerous liability conditions were laid on them that required extremely tight contractual conditions with whom so ever used their product.

The US based companies incl Monsanto developed and rolled out these products at great financial risk and spent the better part of a decade testing and proving that they are safe, better for the environment by using less chemicals, and produce far more.

Now with the US conglomerates having a de facto monopoly bestowed on them by the green movement, the rest of the world is now saying that it is not fair.

The expression "you made the bed now lie in it" springs to mind.

Remember no one is forced to buy their product. If the greens were correct and no one wanted to buy their product they would not be making a profit but a huge loss.

I have not had time to go through all of Foxy's quotes but the one "Today, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill control 90% of the world's grain trade." Is definitely rubbish.

Considering that food supply is often heavily subsidised and as a result controlled by regulatory bodies such as the AWB this is simply not possible. If you have proof that it is, I would like to see it.

PS
The head of the UN general assembly is toothless political appointee whose job it is to spout populist rhetoric. I doubt many people actually know who he is.

Shadow minister,
Thank you for your comment but what you offered is a lot of assumptions and rhetoric....facts old boy facts

First I'm not on about anti-globalism nor am I a greenie.

Your depiction of the president of the UN is inaccurate. Oh as for being unknown that is irrelevant a bit like saying that the global crisis isn’t happening because most people don't know who the president of Lehman Bros is and he's biased.

I tend to play the ball not the man. The challenge still stands.

Agronomist,
I hope you appreciated my warped sense of humour :-)
Good comment but one wonders if you get dizzy with all that spin.
Eg” 200 different seed distributors” the question is how much of the market do they control? That a bit like when I owned pet shop(s) as a small business man and how within 4 months the supermarkets in the same centres increased their pet products from 2 bay shelves to 32 . Their staff used to list my prices and then theirs dropped to undercut me. The centre ignored terms of my pet product exclusivity contract answering in essence …the super markets are more important… No grizzles here, that's business but it indicates the shallowness of that argument.
As for blaming GWB one needs to ask .
- How does that affect the companies blinding profit increases in both $ and % ?
- That higher demand for Glyphos( roundup) was largely due to restrictive contractual obligations on farmers and chemical suppliers therefore an artificial self created demand? To justify price rises?… market manipulation, perversion or profiteering by any name.
Ford/GM et al don’t demand that customers use their brand of over priced petrol (market determined) and unrestricted access to your car to enforce it .

As for the argument ‘it’s legal?” I refer to the power imbalance (unlevel playing field) in my example.

Finally show me your proof, I know where the money is.

examinator, I am just interested in a world view where facts become subordinate to ideology. If you want to understand why things appear as they do, you need to understand the causes. GWB had a major impact on prices of both inputs and grains because a sizable part of the US corn crop was diverted to feeding ethanol plants. The flow on effects of this move were substantial. It may not have mattered so much if world grain stocks were not already tight as a result of reduced production among several major exporters.

The higher demand for glyphosate had nothing to do with restrictive practices. You will notice I said glyphosate and not Roundup? They are not synonymous – there are hundreds of other glyphosate brands out there. If additional demand for a product is created, the price will rise until supply increases. For glyphosate, increased supply will only come from a new manufacturing plant being built.

Monsanto in fact does not demand that growers only use their brands. They require a registered product be used – even in Australia. It is in fact illegal to use anything other than a registered product. Of course farmers also have choice to not grow the crop at all if they so desire.

As in you pet shop example, people didn’t have to buy from the supermarket, but they did because the advantages were there. If people don't want to buy from your pet shop, you need to question why should you be kept in business?

As for D'Escoto, which of the following in his background gives him expertise in agriculture and trade?

1) Catholic priest?
2) Foreign Minister in Nicaragua’s Sandinista Government?
3) President of the UN General Assembly?

I suggest none of the above. What else in his background entitles him to expertise in this area? Nothing that I can see. Are his comments accurate? No. Why then should he not be judged as ignorant in this area? I’m with Shadow Minister here.

You still have not told us what you think should replace supply and demand in the market place

Examinator

Thank you for your comment but what you offered is a lot of assumptions and rhetoric....facts old boy facts, and a link to a leftist blog does not qualify.

If you say that Foxy's quotes are proveable, I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill control 90% of the world's grain trade. Certainly not from Europe, Africa, or Asia, where they have little to no influence (I challenge you to show they have majority control here)

Likewise, the fact that their profits have increased is because they have a good product. Monsanto's 20% chunk of the US market does not mean that the other 1000s of suppliers do not exist to undercut them.

There is no contractual requirement to buy Roundup once you have bought the "Round up ready" seed, but to do otherwise would be simply moronic, and is no way hidden from the buyers.

The present head of the General assembly is qualified to pander to the third world but is hardly qualified to comment on the financial system. His "food democracy" is a recipe to break up the large producers down to subsistence size 3rd world farms, and thus cannot be taken seriously.

This is no more than another conspiracy theory. PS there was no second gunman behind the grassy knoll.

There are some rather staggering numbers that are being bandied about, such as 90% of the world's grain trade being controlled by just three companies. Just what does this mean? Is the estimated 2 242 million tonnes of worldwide production mainly controlled by these companies? Or is it the world trade (ie export/import) in cereals of 264 million tonnes (less than 12% of production) that is the issue?

I also notice the use of the word "control", when "supply" may be just as appropriate. What is there to fear by this? If, as H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann says, 60% of the worlds sgrain supply is "controlled" by hedge funds, what does this mean? That it is traded by these funds, or that at any time these funds may decide to stop supply of the grain to whomever they wish? Or that they artificially jack up the price of grain by hoarding it somewhere? Honestly, the idea of hoarding enough grain is absurd, it would have to be destroyed as there isn't enough storage to hold it indefinitely and harvests are continually replenishing the supply.

These are only just a few issues I am struggling to understand. I do not know what d’Escoto Brockmann or examinator or foxy is exactly trying to say. That companies rule our lives? Yeah, and?

Shadow minister,
It seems you misunderstand what I’m about. I have no Absolute (written in the stars) opinions my pantheon of omnipotence includes logic, and context. This means when I come across a rigid opinion I assume that that person must know something I don’t so I challenge. Simple nothing maniacal.
Ok let’s examine your arguments such as they are.

Agronomist says they just forbid other products …same diff.

As for the ‘left wing blog site’ dismissal. Again with the play the man not the ball (what is said). Naomi Klein is a little more than some brain dead conspiracy theorist. The web site members are farmers etc hardly those lesser lives you detest. I have said innumerable times Left/right diatribe is assumptive reasoning at its worst. To go the step further to say therefore it’s wrong isn’t an argument it’s “It is wrong because I say so.”

“…. break up large producers to the size of subsistence farms…” bogus red herring not true

You bag the President of the UN General Assembly on ad hominem grounds. His speech would have written for him by ‘Qualified boffins’ with the resources of the UN and dare I say a World perspective. Using your logic Howard (a run of the mill solicitor had no qualification in economics (treasurer) or running a public entity (let alone a country) all his facts in speeches were fed to him by PS and then spun.

Conspiracy theory? Give me a break! More ad hominem rhetoric.
There is no conspiracy do individual have less than level playing field strategies to maximize profit you bet. Are these strategies in the interests of people particularly the poor and vulnerable not by a long stretch.

I respect your right to your opinion I was merely trying to find out why. It would appear its based on ideological grounds….Thank you anyway.

Cheers
Examinator ant

Agronomist
I have no ‘Absolute’ opinions only facts, logic and context are omnipotent I reason that those with fixed opinion must know something I don’t. What? Simple nothing maniacal.

You sent me a pro industry site last time as your evidence. I spent some time reading then researching the facts. Some was interesting but most was bias spin.

In past discussions you said Monsanto became a LSC. Because of competition to Roundup from China. Now your implying that it was to lock in a market which?
What is the active ingredient difference? (New info).

You missed my point on the pet shops saga…. The issue was a real Example ONLY.
• The DIFFERENCE in the POWER not equalling Level Playing Field. ABUSE OF POWER.
• The supermarkets were contractually not to compete directly with stores in the centre any more than I could sell milk etc.
• By the way they were selling half strength treatments and sent their clients to me for instructions. Knowing that it would place me at a disadvantage. If I said no. Also when I pointed out to customers that our products were actually better value the S/ms simply dropped their prices below my buy price… once I left their prices on average went up by 60%... i.e. Predatory marketing.
• I would have had to sue Hershfied investments (they went under at that time) and the supermarkets (plural) bankrupting me to fund the legal fights.
I also said “that’s business” …laws/ ethics and small traders are merely annoying speed bumps to the powerful.

A contact of mine in the US wheat belt was complaining that he and his no GM mates can’t buy the ‘no name’ glyphos because all local retailers are contracted to Monsanto products. Introduce one competitive product and they won’t supply him with anything... Predatory marketing. Same as Asian example given previously.
I’m not opposed to supply and demand just the excesses and profiteering.

Bugsey

I think the 80% refers to seed grain. ADM is quoted as controlling 60% of grain in the US.

Regards
Examinator ant

I'm still confused, when you say 'controlled', what does that mean exactly?

So, are you saying that these agricultural giants engaging in predatory pricing? Or are you saying that they are engaging in price fixing of grain commodities worldwide? What is it you are saying exactly? That the companies are too big?

What is it we are supposed to fear here? And what is the evidence for that?

Examinator

For someone that claims to "have no Absolute (written in the stars) opinions my pantheon of omnipotence includes logic, and context."

To quote an anti industrial site whose sole purpose is to slag off Monsanto and others, and who does not even pretend to present diverse opinion, then to requote Foxy's ridiculous claims of 90% control of the grain market by a monopoly seems rather contradictory.

The blind acceptance of "facts" supporting your position and ignoring anything contrary would indicate that your position is idealogically based.

In addition given your advoidance of the points I did make i.e.
-that buying round up ready crops and using something else was idiotic, (sort of like buying a diesel car and wanting to use petrol)
-Your claim that 90% of the market is controlled by monopoly is proveable when the majority of the worlds production is outside their control,
- 80% of the grain seed market is not controlled by Monsanto, and buyers are free to buy from where ever they want.

Would suggest that you and objectivity are strangers.

To top it all you say that Miguel d’Escoto's speech would have "been written for him by ‘Qualified boffins’ with the resources of the UN and dare I say a World perspective" So assuming him to be a puppet with no control over what he says. As M d'E is a paid up marxist, I would think that would be naive at best.

The quip about Howard being treasurer is purely to provoke considering that head of the GA has actually no real power (and can be filled by any twit and usually is), whilst treasurer has.

Dear Shadow Minister,

For your information:

The statistics I quoted in my
earlier post came with a cited website.
One, if you had bothered to look up,
you would have seen that the source was
a credible one.

Heather Pilatic is a PhD, communications associate
at PAN (Pesticide Action Network North America).
Her article, from which I quoted the statistics
(that you claim are "rubbish") , "Food is for
Eating, Not Profiteering," was published in the
Fall issue of PAN magazine.

On what Sir, do you base your assumptions, and
what are your qualifications to do so?

examinator, it would be interesting to know more about your contact in the US wheat belt. The actions you have described are illegal in the US and people go to jail for such things. In any case, most US farmers don’t spray their own crops, but have them sprayed by a contractor. Frequently it is the contractor who makes the product decision, but farmers can request that particular brands are used. There is not a “no name” glyphosate in the US, but a series of brands sold by different companies. There are well over 50 brands available and most companies have at least one. In the industry they are known as generics because they can only come into the market once the patent finishes and they typically use the data package the first company submitted to get a registration.

examinator, I don’t believe anything I have said could be construed as Monsanto becoming an LSC “to lock in a market”. Loss of sales to generic brands sourcing cheap active from China played a role in the move of chemical companies to diversify their businesses. Another factor was the relatively small return on investment once the Agchem arms were hived off from the more profitable pharmaceutical arms of the original companies.

As to your question about ingredients: glyphosate formulations vary in the product loading, the salt used and the surfactants added, but all contain the same herbicide active ingredient.

I suggest a range of sites that contain data to readers, so we can discuss the real world. The last website I remember sending you specifically to look at was of the ETC group http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7685&page=0#119690 Hardly pro-industry.

First you wanted us to accept what D'Escoto isaid based on his position as President of the General Assembly, now when that has been shown to not stack up to expertise you want us to accept it because his “qualified boffins” wrote it. You haven’t yet tried to convince me I should accept it because it is true. Why not? Because it isn’t true.

Shadow minister

I’m sorry you feel that way . By the way I didn’t say I was anti industry that is your assumption. Nor did I say I blindly believed everything on the other side. As yet neither you nor Agronomist has offered independently verifiable proof (facts).
Your specific points …. As to why a farmer would use no name glyophos its cheaper. (In the absence of any chemical difference).
The 90% claim … there is a difference between a conspiracy/cartel and dominance. I think you’ll find that the 3rd world production is but a minor amount to that of the 1st world in tonnage and %.
I think you’ll find that options for non GM farmers are limited due to market manipulation. I think the comment referred to seed grain of GM and it mentioned other companies as well.
The fact that you call the President of the UN general assembly a puppet is sheer opinion . I would suggest that he didn’t get there because he’s stupid . As for the UN being an anti business conspiracy that is preposterous. The speech was taken from a conference about feeding the starving Africans. The idea of letting people starve in favour of an outrageous profit is an obscenity to me…if you see that as Leftie views then so be it. Albeit insulting. A bit like saying all Ausies are drunken louts so you as an Ausie must be a drunken lout.
If you read my posts you maybe surprised to note that I don’t fit any known stereo type. I also find you blind generalizations insulting.
In short I RESPECT your right to your opinion as I am, (without the insults.)
I see no way that we can come to an accommodation on this issue so I guess I’ll have to live with your scorn. Sorry to have bothered you.

End

Hi Foxy, I also have a Ph.D. Does that get me any credibility with you? At least my Ph.D. is in an area closely akin to the topic in question, not in Women’s Studies like Heather Pilatic. I much prefer to deal with what someone says, rather than what their qualifications are. Pilatic in her article makes some of the same comments I do about the causes of the increase in food prices and then goes on to blame three food corporations. How can this be? If the increases in food prices are the result of weather events, biofuels, oil prices, meat consumption and hedge funds, how can food corporations be responsible? I am not sure I would agree that all 400 players in IAASTD were experts either. Many were from NGOs and other ‘civil society’ some had no expertise in agriculture. This holding up the statements that reinforce our prejudices as being from ‘experts’ I find distinctly unsettling. Always you need to state what the ‘expertise’ is, how it is relevant and whether the data support the statement. Did IAASTD make all the statements Pilatic claims? I think not. In any case, the question from her article really should be is small holding across the world the best way to produce food for the world? What would happen to food prices if the efficiencies of larger operators using machinery and being able to afford inputs that increase yields taken out?

examinator, some resources for you on the causes of the ‘food crisis’. http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/ib/FoodPricesPolicyAction.pdf http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/index.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/ai473e/ai473e05.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/

And now for some data on world grain production. http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf Total world cereal production (wheat, rice, maize, coarse grains) for 2006/7 was 2.7 billion tonnes. Third world countries accounted for at least 1.2 billion tonnes of that – so more than 45%.

Examinator,

It would appear from your reply that you did not thoroughly read my post.

I did not call you an anti industrialist, rather that the site you were quoting was avidly so.

Secondly the minor 3rd world production you claim has no real significance includes Europe, Asia and africa and about 80% of the worlds population.

Thirdly, one can either purchase the round up ready crops or enter a contract with a warrantee on productivity which is voided if another product is used. To top it up the cost of Round up per acre since their patent expired is very similar to the other products (see link). There are case studies where other products are used.

http://ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/article.php?id=221

Fourthly I did not say EDM was puppet, quite the contrary, I said that your claim that his speeches were written for him implied that he was a puppet. I think he had a large input to his speech, and that as an unabashed Marxist, he is not stupid, but rather that he is using his postion to push another anti capitalist agenda.

Fifthly, I do not think that concern for the starving millions is a left wing position rather that this concern is being used as a pretext to peddle a anti industrial populist agenda. Breaking up Monsanto would have the same effect on food production as the land redistribution in Zimbabwe. There are other ways to open the market that protect Monsanto's intelectual property.

Finally you find my comments insulting, yet you were the first to call my opinions idealogically based.

Foxy,

With all due respect PAN is an organisation bent on getting rid of pesticides and GM products, and includes such erudite articles as "organics can feed africa" and quoting them is like quoting reader's digest.

My qualifications include an degree in engineering, a degree in Commerce specialising in economics and analytical systems topped up with an MBA, which has a touch more relevance than a PhD in women's studies. Your qualifications?

Well Gentlemen, it seems I've been
out-matched by your knowledge
and qualifications in this subject area.

My qualifications are merely a
Bachelor of Arts and a Master's in Literature.

I stand rightly chastised.

Agronomist,
Fair cop.
I accept the general thrust of your argument.
Perhaps my wheat belt contact is just curmudgeonly.
If GM seed can be raised with another companies’ brand of glyophos then I’ll accept that I’ve been misled.
Mia culpa I looked at the wrong site! Sorry. If dated.

I have always held that leaders’ comments (depending on the context) speak on behalf of the organization not personally and assumed supported by its ‘resources’. (Stated or not).
Relevance of degrees is conditionally relevant in any discussion. (Experience and research, bias make up the pack.)
My puny degrees in
- DP (programming and project management.)
- BBus (marketing/psychology) with several units of economics and 30yrs experience with and within Corporations does still lead me to the demonstrable conclusion that:
• Just because it’s illegal and/or amoral doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
• There is sufficient evidence to seriously doubt the voracity and appropriateness of Corporate Capitalism from a humanity perspective. Too much power in the hands of an inanimate/amoral entity and those who hide behind it…but that is for another time. Likewise Rational Darwinism is an excuse not an “absolute.”
• As are the substantive arguments that bigger, more is necessarily best.

d’Escoto’s past is irrelevant i.e. Howard came to the treasury with more ideology than real knowledge of economics yet he still pontificated. Relative power is also irrelevant in this context. Power doesn’t bestow truth, only facts can do that.
Perhaps that is the nub of my concern and our disagreement…Power and its use.

In the final analysis corporate capitalism focuses on escalating profit and consequently it manipulates and victimizes. People starving because they can’t pay are tragedy of world proportions. But when it’s exacerbated by the need of more profit by the rich, as a human… left/right, up or down, that’s an (fixable) obscenity.
I am conflicted over the wisdom of more regulations because like locks, “they’re there to keep honest people honest.

Shadow Minister.
Read and understood and I still stand by my assessment.

BTW
I think you were unnecessarily agressive/rude to Foxy, she never attacks anyone.

There are several reasons why food prices have esculated, the cost of delivery being one such reason, bio fuel another.

Why is it that almost every sector of the workforce has enjoyed huge pay increases in the past 5 to 8 years, yet the sellers and growers of food are shunned at when they make a profit, which in effect, results in a pay rise for them.

As for shares in food production companies, it is quite obvious that when the financial belt tightens, more and more families will turn to home cooked meals as oppossed to take out or dine in meals which in turn will increase the demand for food ingredients.

Examinator,

Having spent some time on the economics of itellectual property, it is recognised that some holders of patents will make extraodinary profits. However, this is balanced against the hundreds of thousands of people and organisations who invest time and money into designs that yield no return.

If companies would make only the same profit from new designs as old, there would be no incentive to pour millions into R&D much of it into dead ends.

About 15yrs ago a single individual was awarded about $200m for a patent that General Motors infringed for intermittent windscreen wipers. (not bad for a years work)

As patents are limited in time, the benefits will pass on. The patent for Glyphos has expired and it is now freely available. Like wise the patent for their GM crops has been out for about 15yrs (profitable for only the last couple) and in time will become freely available, and so its power is limited.

The previous technologies are still available and form about 80% of the market. Monsanto is big but not nearly as big as say du pont or other chemical companies and only has a monopoly on its patent.

As in my previous post, the main contributing reason for the exclusivity that Monsanto enjoys is that GM research is heavily restricted and expensive compared to the subsidised hybridisation research with the result that most companies have either been disuaded or prohibited from competing. The green movement has effectively eliminated the competition.

The saying "you reap what you sow" is particularily appropriate.

Stripping Monsanto of their profits while satisfying some moral outrage would be a pyrrhic victory, and would have the effect of stopping future GM research in it tracks, which is I suspect the real agenda of Ms Heather Pilatic.

In addition d’Escoto’s past is not irrelevant as it shows extremist motivation in his pontifications.

Your example of Howard as treasurer using his position to advance his political views is a less extreme example.

Finally I had hoped that "facts, logic and context" would enable you to modify your assessment.

Shadow Minister,
I appreciate the change, thank you.
I can follow your logic but still dispute some of your conclusions but never your right to make them.

In essence our disagreement is a matter of degree and starting point to our analysis. Both you and Agronomist start from the proposition that Corporate Capitalism is the logical progression from Smith's work (a reasonable assessment).
(It at next assumption that I start asking questions). That it is consistent with and acceptable to the goals of Capitalism.

Note. This doesn’t equate with any predetermined agenda.

Here, I invoke my omnipresent deity ‘Context’, Smith’s work was set in a time before limited Liability Companies or mega corporations. Therefore he never considered the consequences of either.

Given the obvious increasing imbalance between those who can and those who can’t be meaningly involved in capitalism. I posed the question are we indeed ‘profiteering’ (aka exploiting and exacerbating the misery of the “dispossessed”)?

Monsanto per se is irrelevant just an example of the “accepted” practice that these increasing disparities are clear failures of this ‘evolved’ system.

I then ask is there a common link (apart from human nature)?
In essence it seems to be a case of too much power for what is essentially an inanimate amoral creation that is giving intellectual/moral cover to dispense with the societal responsibilities/morality. In well founded psychological terms it allows separation between the decider and the ‘affected’. i.e. We won’t as readily harm people who are close as we will merely statistics.

These imbalances(abuses?) in power may not be as efficient/desirable as your “basic assumption” may suggest…I would suggest with some rational justification, that corporate capitalism is neither efficient or in human interests. It is in fact machines (tools) for concentrating power and limiting distribution of wealth or humans are now servants to the tool, all of which are diametrically opposed to Smith’s work and intentions.
Too esoteric? No! But it suggests we examine ALL assumptions and options need to be OBJECTIVELY investigated. Summarily dismissal on who is making the suggestion merely closes options.

Examinator,

With all due respect, comparing modern economics with Adams Smith discourse on the wealth of nations is like comparing a modern car with a donkey cart.

I would also ask you to ponder whether if corporations like Monsanto did not exist who would have developed Glyphos and Glyphos resistant crops or even the hybrids we have today. Given the huge costs involved I suspect not, and given that bugs and weeds evolve resistance, we would be in a poor condition food wise.

The alternative would be to return to the even more discredited socialist policies which simply ensured that nearly everyone was equally dispossesed.

I would further ask you, given that Joe Bloggs can buy seed and Glyphos from many sources, how Monsanto's innovation has harmed anyone.

The talk of profiteering is founded in envy, and considering that this innovation is increasing food supply, it has no other foundation as far as world hunger is concerned.

examinator, I agree laws do not stop people from breaking them. However, if people do break laws – even if they are companies – there is recourse in the law and somebody should be going after them.

.>>d’Escoto’s past is irrelevant i.e. Howard came to the treasury with more ideology than real knowledge of economics yet he still pontificated.<<

d'Escoto’s past is entirely relevant. There is nothing in his past that indicates he has any expertise in this area. He made statements that were obviously incorrect, but which did conform with his Marxist ideology. Likewise, Howard’s ideology is entirely relevant when considering his performance at the Treasury and as Prime Minister. I am not saying d’Escoto or Howard shouldn’t pontificate, just that we shouldn’t be told to believe them based on the positions they hold.

I would agree that corporations are not perfect; however, sadly they appear to be the best and most responsive way to get products to the market. The alternatives to corporations doing this is governments, no-one else has the financial resources to deal with the regulatory, safety and trade issues. Government monopolies quickly become unresponsive to people’s needs because there is no competition and therefore no incentive to continue to improve the product. Commercial monopolies are just as bad. Certainly in the US they have anti-trust laws to stop commercial monopolies from forming.