Corporatocracy at full speed

[Catonahottinroof]

The CEO of Nestle on clean water, GMO foodstuffs.......SMH....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEFL8ElXHaU

[suncat05]

Not sure I fully agree with him on the water issue. Sounds like more 'social engineering' & 'social justice' lamenting to me....... :poke:

[Catonahottinroof]

Healthcare is moot without clean water, and the private sector spewing this out of one side of his mouth touts the safety of GMO food stuffs while the other side of his mouth determining one's right clean water first requires Nestle's involvement...at a profit for Nestlé.

Take a quick look at former Monsanto high level management that are now running high level positions in our current government. You can then see how so many regs are slipping by that allow GMO/glyphosate contaminated food are now in the US food supply.

[UKHistory]

If you think war for oil is bloody war for water will be even more fierce.

All human beings have a right to live and access to clean water may not be a right but it is a necessity.

As such no one should try and profit off of that.

[Doc]

I tried to listen but I'll I could hear was "adolf hitler".

[CitizenBBN]

I'm going to disagree. Water is wasted in vast quantities in this coutnry b/c it is treated as "free" and managed by government.

Water is a resource like anything else, a phyiscal thing in limited supply. All resources are limited on this Earth and thus must be allocated in some way. Some method must be used for deciding how the resource is used.

The most efficient model for resource allocation ever develoepd, the one that helps the most people with the least waste of that resource, is the free market. By harnessing the econmic desire of Man it ahs allowed us to massively raise the standard of living of humanity. It has taken us from the horse and buggy to the internet in less than a century when 50,000 years of government run systems prior to it never took us past the horse and buggy.

If water is valuable, the best and most efficient way to allocate it is to have it managed within the free enterprise system where supply and demand set a price and encourage constant innovation and conservation as the "invisible hand" of the profit motive drive people at every level to meet the needs of consumers.

Profit isn't bad. Profit is good. profit is what motivates peope to invent everything from the automobile to medical equipment. It encourages innovation, it encourages creative thinking, adaptability. Scrambling for that profit keeps things running efficiently, keeps the resource from being wasted b/c wasting a drop of it costs someone money.

it is when we lack profit motive that things become wasteful, inefficient, and the resource is wasted. Governments don't care if water is wasted. Politicians only care if they stay in office, and whether they stay in office has nothing to do with whether government works or works well or if resources are well allocated. If it did not a member of Congress would win re-election for the last 50 years. Blame and perception is all they care about, and often the best way to stay in office is to be wasteful of resources, allocating them politically to those who will back you in staying in that office. Allocating so the most people get the most good is the fartherst thing from government's mind.

Profit is the key to technological innovation, substitution, expansion fo the resource. Ways to find more water, use water more efficiently, design systems for managing water better. But Price place a key role in allocation and conservation as well. water is wasted in vast quantities in this country b/c it is artificially under priced in many areas. Price is the key to conservation of resources. No one would let a faucet pouring out gold run while it got hot. When that practice costs less than a penny no one cares. If it cost a dollar to run the water while you brush your teeth or shave you'd be more likely to conserve that use and not waste that water.

There has never been an allocation by government as efficient as the free market, and in many cases the market can be even more "fair" in its allocation. Mass production is the result of people seeing the vast demand of the "masses" for things and finding ways to reduce the cost of the item's production so it can be sold to far more people. The sheer size of the pool of "non rich" makes them a far more valuable market to satisfy. the path to being rich isn't to build custome high end things for a few people, it's to build lots of cheap low priced things for vast numbers of people, and we see over and over again how the market works to bring the price of things down from very expensive to something most anyone can afford.

What quality of TVs do you think we'd have if the government took over TV production and allocation in the 1950s? How many computers would we have if the government were in charge of computer resources since the 60s, when they commissioned a study that concluded only 10 would be needed by the year 2000?

Should we see Bill gates or Michael Dell as bad guys b/c they got rich bringing those computers to the masses? Are LG and Samsung and Sony the bad guys for taking TVs from black and white to 60" HDTV flat panels?

Now, here's the question: why wouldn't we want them in charge of bringing water to consumers? they've done a great job with everything else havent' they? The market has given us incredible advances in technology, transportation, medical care, you name it. How much has TVA advanced in that same time frame? How much has water management by governments advanced?

The government has largely controlled or heavily managed water ownership, access, transport and use since before WWII. How much has technology for moving water and storing water and cleaning water and efficiently using water in the home advanced really since the 1930s? How much have we moved forward in areas where the nasty "profit" has raised it's ugly head?

No, I want the free market to manage the water supply. I want them to do it b/c I know the billions to be made by doing it well will drive people to do it very well indeed. Yes some people will get rich, and they will have gotten rich b/c their contributions will have made all our lives better and we will have lined up to give them our money in exchange for their invention and be happy for the exchange. maybe it's a whole different kind of faucet, maybe it's just a cheaper way to build the ones that go on and off automatically, maybe it's soemthing farther back in the system like a new way to purify water so it can be resold as fresh water again. Who knows? The only way for it to happen is to let the profit motive take over, let millions of people pursue that profit and some few of them succeed with great ideas.

the market is seen as somehow being greedy and bad, as only serving the wealthy, when just the opposite is true and has even been true. Governments pay lip service to the "masses", but their pattern and practice is to only serve special interests, most esp. those with enough money or votes to entice governments to make them even richer or favor them with perks. It has been the free market that has brought real daily improvements in the quality of life to the average American, not government. It has been the pursuite of profit that has driven it, taken Americans from riding horses to flying in planes and communicating around the world in real time, not governments.

Why on Earth do I want government managing something really important like water? They've shown no ability to manage anything else, whereas the market has shown consistently it can manage resources efficiently and plan for their future. I know of no case of resource waste or unplanned consumption where government wasn't the problem, and not the solution. Not one.


That is a critical point btw: property rights allow resources to be valued for their FUTURE value and need as well as their current demand, something government cannot do.

Make water the valuable resource it is, and let people OWN that resource so it can have long term value and thus be protected and allocated for both today and the future. Governments can't do that b/c future generations don't vote and politicians only care about staying in power. But when a thing is owned and property rights are in place things have future value, and that future value has a net present value today, which means its future value is part of the value of the thing, so it isn't squandered.

Clear cutting of forests out west? You never see that on privately owned timber land, only on government owned land where they won't give out long term leases, so what makes the most sense is to cut it all b/c there is no property right so there is no future value b/c the lease is up in 10 years. Private land, where the value of the land in 100 years has value today, doesn't have nearly the problem with resource depletion and damage. Overfishing? You don't see that on farm raised property, where things are managed b/c the young fish and the environment itself has value. You only see it in the open water where no one owns the fish and crab that are there. They have no future value to anyone so people try to take every bit they can today.


Do I want a free and open market in charge of my water supply or the US Congress? Do I want Nestle or the state of New York and Mayor Bloomberg? I'll take Nestle.

let me be clear though: what we will get isn't the free market. what we're going to get is corporatism, where government and big business partner to control things. that is not the free market or free enterprise, and it will not have true property rights. Most of what people perceive as the evils of the 'free market' are in fact the evils of government operating on behalf of large corporations to keep them both in power and making money. Let those companies stand on their own without government help and we'd have a free market. of course then GM nad half of Wall Street would be only in the history books, and the market would be functioning again to punish those who make bad decisions.

[Catonahottinroof]

To refute the above I'll leave this simple anecdote, he who controls the food supply(and water) controls society.

The irritating thing about water from Nestlé, PepsiCo or Coca Cola is that water is sourced from public sources, and municipal utilities.

[CitizenBBN]

To refute the above I'll leave this simple anecdote, he who controls the food supply(and water) controls society.

The irritating thing about water from Nestlé, PepsiCo or Coca Cola is that water is sourced from public sources, and municipal utilities.

Exactly my point. First I don't want a central government controlling either supply. in a real free market we'd have lots of owners and there would be no centralized control of that supply.

Second, don't confuse my defense of the free market (largely b/c of the reference to profit motive as somehow bad) as a defense of the "system" as it now stands. While I agree with his words, that water is a resource best allocated by a free market, I do not agree with the reality that Nestle is a major corporate entity that in reality has no desire to see a free market situation at all. What they want is government intrusion and protectionism, just done in a way to benefit them and protect them from competition.

Business as a whole, free enterprise, is a great thing. Businesses individually will take free enterprise, but what they want even more is for government to create protectionist barriers to entry and allocations that favor them versus the competition. I never confuse what a business wants with "free enterprise" or the current corporate/government partnerships as the free market.

Businesses and people want to make money. the most money as easy as possible. The best way to have that work to our advantage is to implement a free market system b/c it forces them all to compete, but often the easiest way for the individual to make money is to subvert the free market in someway, 99% of the time with government assistance. It's far easier to make money by having government grant me a big contract and protect me from competition than to have to compete every day with people creatively trying to figure out ways to provide better products and services at lower prices.

My point is there should be no municipal water reserves. If Pepsi wants to be in the water business great, they can buy some land and dig a lake and get started. But government rules and regs and contracts and exclusions and non-compete laws would prevent such a thing from happening.

I just dont' see anything in his actual words that is problematic. What is problematic for you I think is the same thing that is an issue for me: not his statement that water should be allocated by the free market, but that what we will get is not a free market situation at all but a corporatist one where government protects certain privileged companies. At least I think so.

[Catonahottinroof]

Government is too protective of corporate entities. My reference to Monsanto is just the largest that is visible. I'm all to reminded of the movie Soylent Green, which appears to be happening before our very eyes.

[UKHistory]

As John Foster Dulles once said, "what is good for GM is good for America". Corporations that rule are far worse than governments. Both can be wasteful but I will trust government's inefficiency over a corporation's cruelty.

Nestle, if I remember correctly, is a company that has a bad reputation for getting mother's--especially in the 3rd world--to stop providing breast milk to their babies and instead use their formula. The formula water which is in great demand in the third world and there is not always proper sanitation to mix the formula properly.

My point is this. I distrust government but I distrust corporations even more. Always but increasingly governments are swayed by corporations to do their bidding.

I can't trust the market to protect us. Why? Because the market like earth bound churches or government are run people. Our nature is the snake in the garden and too much power by anyone person or entity and that is not going to be good for the majority.

We have wasted water and other resources in this country because it is plentiful here and we have been blessed. But the clean water issues that Tennessee and Georgia struggle with; the Colorado River and the California's use of it; coupled with droughts will test this land of plenty we call home.

I can't place my confidence in the free market system alone because--at least in the short term--people see the quick buck is in blood. The quick buck in the free market system is earned through war, famine, blood, drugs. Human misery feeds the market.

It feeds innovation too. I will take inefficient government over multinational corporate greed (until those MNCs buy all the politicians). Then we need to follow Mr. Jefferson's advice and have another revolution.

[CitizenBBN]

We basically agree on the state of things, we're just differing on the solution. FWIW I'm actually all for another revolution. The Founders were revolutionaries, and most felt it was a good thing from time to time.

History, the whole point of the market is that it isn't run by anyone. it is exactly what someone who accepts the failed nature of Man should desire the most. It distributes power.
Everything you describe isn't the free market nor is it profit motive. Yes the profit motive drives drug sales, b/c the profit motive is blind. It provides what people demand. If people demand drugs it means they will pay and if people will pay others will try to meet the need. I don't deny it, I simply accept it as the human condition. As you you based on your post.

The trick is how do we use that profit motive to best advantage for mankind? the way to do that is the free market. If we push it into government it may be harder to see, but it's there all the same. You don't get rid of the homo economicus nature of Man.

The system you are describing isn't the free market or free enterprise. Multinational corporate greed only exists in these excesses b/c of government protection. "Too big to fail" is the latest excuse for it, and ironically big labor was right there protecting those companies b/c the enemy of both is the open and free market and small businesses. Those excesses only exist b/c the market is restricted from functioning.

I don't "trust" a particular corporation any more than I trust government. I don't trust anyone to do anything but look out for themselves in the end. This isn't about trust, it's about distrust. If you distrust corporations what you want to do is set up a system that pits them all against each other and use the external forces of economics to keep them in check, as opposed to centralizing power in a government that will only act to protect some few of them and grant them far more power than they would otherwise have.

Once you let government get into manipulation of the market what have you really done? You haven't brought in some selfless entity to stop those abuses, you've extended the power and influence of those corporations into government. You've only grown the corruption, not limited it.

I'm not supporting Nestle. I have no doubt that given the power they'd take every penny from all of us at gunpoint. it's the fact that I know they are only going to do what is best for them, as are both political parties, big labor, the NCAA, the University of kentucky, churches, and every other entity with only a smattering of exceptions, that I want NONE of them to have any more power than is absolutely necessary. If none of them have the power to tax or control over that power, then there will be no involuntary taking from people.

We both accept the nature of man, that the profit motive is not a function of a market but is inherent to our nature. the only question is how to best manage that basic human behavior. Where you would expand the power of the government to try to combat it in some way, I want to limit the power of all the players including government to the point where no one of them accumulates enough power, which means the consumers themselves in their decisions limit the deleterious effects of the profit motive.

[CitizenBBN]

As for the Nestle baby food disaster directly, I think it is proof positive of the profit motive and how it is not either good or bad but simply exists.

It is a lot like the drug situation in the US. The market is blind, it will respond to demand whether that demand is deemed good or bad for those demanding it. It makes no moral judgment on what people are demanding for their consumption.

In this case Nestle marketed baby formula to mothers as part of a modern and Western suburban existence. They ate it up b/c the allure of Western suburbia was so strong in the 3rd world and even strong in the US. However, Nestle not once FORCED anyone to use formula. They simply sold it as part of what a modern woman does.

They did commit some frauds with it, but of course one key role of government is to prosecute fraud as a crime, which was never done b/c Nestle is big and powerful and those nations aren't really free markets. One marketing strategy used by Nestle was to provide perks to hospitals to encourage them to promote baby formula. Many if not most of those were government run entities. The governments in those countries were corrupted even more easily than the consumers were sold, and at less overhead no doubt.

But the truth is that the market only responds to what people want and will provide it for them even if it is bad for them. It makes no moral judgment.

IMO that is a good thing, maybe the best of things. If we as a group decide something is immoral to consume in some way, that people must be protected against themselves, we have to enact laws against that particular thing. The market will not stop functioning, we cannot ban the profit motive.

In the baby formula case IMO it should have been made prescription only, yet government including the UN protects the industry. It is unnecessary in most cases, and is worse for the child in most every case, yet is a multibillion dollar industry. So much for government protecting us, all they did was compromise a balance between the damage to society and the money to be made.

Drugs in the US are the same way. If people demand it others will try to supply it. Profit motive makes no moral judgment. It will supply good things or bad things, whatever people demand for themselves. If we have a problem with what is being provided we have to address the demand and/or make the thing illegal, but that isn't a failing of the free market system. If anything the fact that the drug industry flourishes in the US shows just how powerful the profit motive is and how strong market forces are, and how no amount of government intervention will change it.

that means we need to work WITH the market to solve problems, not against it. When banning the product and arresting everyone who produces, distributes or uses it, the most forceful anti-market stance possible, doesn't make a dent in the market for a product, maybe it's time to realize we need to try pro-market solutions to problems. In the case of drugs it's focusing on the existence of the demand, and with water it's focusing on property rights for water resources that would pretty much expand our supply to the point of not having to worry.

No government, no civil service manual, no voting system, can stand against the very nature of man. To me it is no different than the fundamental failing of socialism: it ignores human nature. No system can change people from being basically self interested. The brilliance of Adam Smith is that we don't deny it or try to force it into remission, we embrace it and pit it against itself in pursuit of satisfying demand.

[Catonahottinroof]

Nestlé is a Swiss company. Since their base isn't here, I'm not sure how much protection they get from the FDA here, but all you need to to is Google Nestlé and ethics and you will find interesting reading. Particularly on the subject UKHistory noted along with product labeling in its Asian products..all in the name of the mighty Swiss Franc, legalities be damned.
Monsanto gets that kind of protection here. They have patented their gene splicing of seeds for genetically modified corn, beans and sugar beets. Crops that are genetically resistant to glyphosate (the chemical in Roundup). Crops are doused with that herbicide, and it damaged the soil and contaminates the agricultural product put into the food supply.
Monsanto was granted the Monsanto Protection Act, signed into law by Obama on March 21at, providing some immunity to them for glyphosate saturated corn, soybeans and sugar beets. Oversaturation of glyphosate is causing "superweeds" that are becoming resistant to the herbicide.
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto VP for public policy is now the commissioner of the FDA.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.....

[CitizenBBN]

Nestlé is a Swiss company. Since their base isn't here, I'm not sure how much protection they get from the FDA here, but all you need to to is Google Nestlé and ethics and you will find interesting reading. Particularly on the subject UKHistory noted along with product labeling in its Asian products..all in the name of the mighty Swiss Franc, legalities be damned.
Monsanto gets that kind of protection here. They have patented their gene splicing of seeds for genetically modified corn, beans and sugar beets. Crops that are genetically resistant to glyphosate (the chemical in Roundup). Crops are doused with that herbicide, and it damaged the soil and contaminates the agricultural product put into the food supply.
Monsanto was granted the Monsanto Protection Act, signed into law by Obama on March 21at, providing some immunity to them for glyphosate saturated corn, soybeans and sugar beets. Oversaturation of glyphosate is causing "superweeds" that are becoming resistant to the herbicide.
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto VP for public policy is now the commissioner of the FDA.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.....

And none of it would have happened if not for the power of government to intervene in the market.

The largest source of water pollution in the US is agricultural runoff, and it has been that way a long time. pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers are poured into the water system by the billions of gallons through runoff.

But this gets to my point about the critical need for property rights. Why doesn't someone sue Monsanto for property damage for polluting the rivers? b/c the government "owns" the rivers. If you lived next to me and I put waste on my land that ran to yours you'd have standing to sue, right? If you owned the Mississippi you'd sue Monsanto for pollution right? but you don't own it, no one owns it, so the damage done to it becomes a purely political matter. Since few people are aware of the problem and the impact is so indirect, but the economic impact is so great for Monsanto, they spend millions in lobbying to make sure the government doesn't stop their actions.

Sure there are some things that get done here and there, but even those are usually done to protect industries as much as help anyone. The Clean Air Act of 78 is a famous example, b/c instead of just limiting pollutants the eastern states got it written to require "best technology", b/c had it been all about just reducing pollution the factories and plants woudl have just switched to western coal that was lower in sulphur. The way it was written it protected the eastern coal industry but didn't reduce pollution nearly as much as was possible. But no one owns the air either, it was a political decision.

Don't think Obama is now trying to correct that either. He's just beholden to DIFFERENT big companies trying to get special perks. There's still no benevolent ruler here. He is just ending coal while pouring billions into the industries that have given to HIS campaign and his political party. That's why he protects Monsanto, bc they are paying him to.

So I'm with both of you guys, completely. I despise "big business", but "big business" only exists thanks to it's Siamese twin, "big government". You can't solve the excess of MNCs by expanding the power of government. that's how the MNCs got to be MNCs in the first place.

Personally I prefer my world, where other private individuals also interested in making money and protecting their valuable assets have standing to sue Monsanto and those who use their products for the externalities of their practices. Then you have a free market, pitting the profit motive against each other in a system with power distributed and not accumulated so it can force whatever outcome it wants.

[Catonahottinroof]

Those same waterways are what is being sought by the Nestle's of the world. Government involvement in these decisions are influenced by the businesses themselves, either by lobbying, outright bribery, campaign donations and folks who are playing both sides of the fence by moving freely between the 2.

We agree that government involvement is an issue, but only because that government is bloated, weak and not held accountable.

I have a chronic illness that can be influenced by the factors discussed in this thread and once you start to realize where ingested toxins are originating you become alarmed that the fox is being invited into the hen house by a feathered covered fox..

[CitizenBBN]

You'll get no argument from me. The corruption runs very deep at every level. Always follow the money.

It's why I want the government out of all of these things. If it were up to me we'd make some simple reforms including among other things an outright ban on all campaign contributions for federal elections (maybe past the primary) with no money being built up in war chests, a ban on all amalgamated lobbying organizations (501c4s et al). Each candidate getting enough signatures gets $X from the government for a campaign. I don't think we can ban individuals from spending directly like you or me buying a TV ad b/c of free speech, but we can't contribute to a single entity that can amass the $20 million war chest for the media blitz. That's not a free speech issue, don't think it's an association issue either.

there are other things on my list, but that would be a start. But it doesn't start with expanding a corrupt government IMO, it starts with limiting government and getting the corruption out of it.

[dan_bgblue]

The largest source of water pollution in the US is agricultural runoff, and it has been that way a long time. pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers are poured into the water system by the billions of gallons through runoff.

That is misleading to a degree. The largest polluters of fresh water in the nation, on a per square foot area basis, are large cites and small towns, and they win the competition by a large margin. Agricultural runoff into streams and rivers has been reduced dramatically in the last 40 years due to many innovative farming techniques and huge reductions in pounds of active pesticides applied to soil and crops. Agricultural use of pesticides is highly regulated by the EPA but no one regulates the use of tons of pesticides and fertilizers used by the average citizen.

Any pollution of our water resources is bad, but agriculture gets a bad rap in this area, and based on the efforts of that industry to reduce that pollution, they should be applauded not scorned. If you want to point fingers at a larger problem and one that no one seems to want to address, point them at the suburbanite that likes lush, green grass in his yard, the golf courses operations, parks and recreation services, mom and pop gardeners who put uncontrolled amounts of fertilizers and pesticides on each square foot of veggies, flowers, and grass to make it produce more, make it look pretty, or keep the ants and spiders out of their house.

Is agriculture a polluter? Yes it is and the industry works very hard to limit off site movement of the products they apply to the soil and crops.

[CitizenBBN]

That is misleading to a degree. The largest polluters of fresh water in the nation, on a per square foot area basis, are large cites and small towns, and they win the competition by a large margin. Agricultural runoff into streams and rivers has been reduced dramatically in the last 40 years due to many innovative farming techniques and huge reductions in pounds of active pesticides applied to soil and crops. Agricultural use of pesticides is highly regulated by the EPA but no one regulates the use of tons of pesticides and fertilizers used by the average citizen.

Any pollution of our water resources is bad, but agriculture gets a bad rap in this area, and based on the efforts of that industry to reduce that pollution, they should be applauded not scorned. If you want to point fingers at a larger problem and one that no one seems to want to address, point them at the suburbanite that likes lush, green grass in his yard, the golf courses operations, parks and recreation services, mom and pop gardeners who put uncontrolled amounts of fertilizers and pesticides on each square foot of veggies, flowers, and grass to make it produce more, make it look pretty, or keep the ants and spiders out of their house.

Is agriculture a polluter? Yes it is and the industry works very hard to limit off site movement of the products they apply to the soil and crops.

I can't argue that cities and towns, i.e. simple human waste and consumption, are massive. I was putting agriculture in contrast to the public perception that it's factories with big drain pipes dumping pollution in the river out back. industrial water pollution isn't nearly as big as other sources.

Agriculture and urban runoff are "non point" sources and two of the top 3 sources of water pollution. The biggest "point source" is municipal sewage. industrial waste doesn't match any of those 3. I apologize for picking out agriculture, but the EPA data shows it is still the #1 polluter of lakes and rivers. Estuary pollution #1 comes from urban runoff. I picked it b/c lots of people still think it's industrial production, and agriculture is the offsetting economic form for industrial production. I should have made a more qualified statement.

My broader point is that in all of these cases it happens b/c water pollution is an externality of the market. Battles over water rights go back to the beginning of time, the guy up stream dumping his waste in the river and destroying the value of the river downstream, or damning the river and cutting off water downstream. In most cases the government ends up owning them, and just like Adam Smith's examples of the Commons of Britain, it ends up exploited and damaged b/c it lacks the protection of property rights.

[Catonahottinroof]

When Jefferson County was emission testing automobiles a study had shown that vehicle emissions were about 15% of the emissions generated to the low level ozone problem. Soon after the VET program disappeared in Jefferson County. Large industry, emissions from utilities create much of the air pollution problem in Louisville. Rain puts that air pollution in the water. In sure ag sources contaminate water sources daily, but I wouldn't think it's all on the farmers.