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.