DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 7308--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: June 9, 2017, 11:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: As a former Air Traffic controller, I can tell
you that "privatizing" ATC is an insane idea. WHY do the
airlines want it? Because the major air carriers will then
arrange to get priority for landing and to to elbow out small
operators, and small aircraft too, form being able to use
airports. THAT means LESS frequent flights, LESS choice for
flights AND HIGHER coast for flying. Have a nice day.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/-0y5EZgD9q0[/center]
#Post#: 7522--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: July 20, 2017, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Some of the hardest info to find on earth
This is not a short video, but it is very clear and very well
presented. Please take the time to watch it.
This is some of the hardest info to find on earth...
What US food packagers actually put in their "food products."
If you are vulnerable - and many millions are - you may be being
set up for serious neurological problems.
This especially effects small children, the elderly, and the
chronically ill, but it's a danger to all.
Why haven't you heard this before?
The packaged food industry is bigger than the oil industry and
they employ floors full of attorneys and public relations
scammers to suppress this information.
Even Ralph Nader couldn't stand the heat when he approached this
topic.
The author is a retired neurosurgeon, and author of the book
"Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", Dr. Russell
Blaylock.[/quote]
[center]Essential viewing for your health[/center]
[center]The every day poisons in packaged food[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/tTSvlGniHok[/center]
HTML http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/food-choices/essential-viewing-for-your-health.html
#Post#: 7552--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: July 24, 2017, 6:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][font=times new roman]Court Rules Against General Mills
Motion to Dismiss, Says It's Reasonable Consumers Wouldn't
Consider Glyphosate-Containing Nature Valley Granola Bars
'Natural'
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif[/font][/center]
Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association and Beyond
Pesticides announced Monday that the District of Columbia
Superior Court has rejected General Mills' motion to dismiss a
lawsuit brought by the three nonprofits against the maker of
Nature Valley granola bars. The recent ruling upholds the right
of nonprofits to bring these types of complaints against
corporations. It also reinforces the notion that consumers can
reasonably expect a product labeled "100% Natural" to be free of
herbicides.
These three nonprofit groups sued General Mills in August 2016,
for misleading the public by labeling Nature Valley brand
granola bars as "Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS" after
tests revealed the presence of the chemical herbicide
glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and hundreds of
other glyphosate-based herbicides. The suit was brought on
behalf of the nonprofits' members in Washington, DC, under the
District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
"This is a huge win for consumers," said Organic Consumers
Association's international director Ronnie Cummins. "In making
this ruling, the judge reinforced the right of consumers to have
reasonable expectations about what a company means by 'natural.'
The 'natural' food industry is estimated at $90 billion a year.
By slapping the word 'natural' on products that contain
pesticides and other unnatural substances, corporations deceive
consumers, and cut into the market share for authentically
labeled healthy and certified organic products."
[font=times new roman]Key findings from the DC Superior Court
ruling include:[/font]
The Court recognized that the 2012 Amendments to the DC Consumer
Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) may have expanded the means by
which nonprofits may bring representative actions.
The Court rejected General Mills' argument that courts should
defer to the FDA on possible future ruling re: "natural" food
labeling, holding that it was up to the courts to decide what is
or isn't misleading to consumers.
The Court also noted that it does not appear likely that the FDA
will issue a ruling on "natural" anytime soon—rejecting a common
argument made by so many food producers seeking to avoid
liability for their misrepresentations.
The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that General
Mills' "Made With 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats" claims were
misleading to consumers.
"When a customer chooses a food product that says 100% Natural
on the packaging, they do so because the food manufacturer has
communicated to them, with that claim, that their products are
without harmful, man-made chemicals," Zen Honeycutt, founder of
Moms Across America, said. "We are very pleased that this case
will be heard and misleading labeling will be addressed."
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, agrees.
"In this case, consumer law is critical to rein in companies
that deceive consumers with 'natural' labeling when their
products contain ingredients that are grown with pesticides,"
Feldman said.
HTML https://www.ecowatch.com/general-mills-glyphosate-2464624927.html
#Post#: 7553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: July 24, 2017, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]DieselGate in Germany heats up![/move]
[img
width=100]
HTML https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/all/themes/clew/logo.png[/img]
July 24,2017
[font=times new roman]Der Spiegel / Spiegel Online[/font]
[center]The cartel
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif[/center]
Germany’s most important carmakers have met in “secret
workshops” since the 1990s in order to coordinate their exhaust
gas treatment systems and collude to fix technology, costs and
suppliers, weekly news magazine Der Spiegel and associated
website Spiegel Online report. “This could amount to one of the
largest cases of cartel agreements in Germany’s economic
history,” Frank Dohmen and Dietmar Hawranek write on Spiegel
Online.
A “sort-of voluntary disclosure” made last year by the country’s
biggest carmaker VW revealed that Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW
and Daimler have all been implicated in the secret meetings in
which “agreements were made to systematically undermine free
competition”, the article says.
What might turn out to be especially troublesome for Germany’s
most important industry is that the carmakers apparently also
agreed on important technical details of their diesel exhaust
gas treatment and therefore jointly “laid the basis of the
diesel scandal”.
Süddeutsche Zeitung
[center]Appearance and reality[/center]
Almost no other country hosts as many important car
manufacturers side-by-side as Germany and, with about 800,000
employees nationwide, the industry “has an invaluable social
responsibility”, Thomas Fromm writes in a commentary for
Süddeutsche Zeitung.
In order to stand out from their national competitors, German
car brands have long sought to promote their uniqueness and
“sell emotions alongside steel sheets and horsepower”, Fromm
argues. “One has to bear in mind this strategy of distinction to
comprehend why the latest allegations over forming a cartel
strike the industry at its core,” he writes.
If Germany’s most important carmakers have colluded to fix
technology and costs since the 1990s, “they not only would have
fooled their customers. They would also have ridiculed their
precious brand-claims and thereby their company’s identity as
well”.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
[center][img width=400
height=150]
HTML http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080719200951/uncyclopedia/images/e/e0/Downarrow.PNG[/img][/center]
[center]BMW, VW and Daimler shares take hard hit[/center]
Shares of German carmakers BMW, VW and Daimler were falling
substantially on Monday after allegations emerged on Friday that
the companies operated a cartel, followed by an EU probe into
the affair, news agency Reuters reports.
“The European Commission said on Saturday that European Union
antitrust regulators had received a tip-off about another
possible cartel,” the article says.
HTML http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/autokartell-den-deutschen-autokonzernen-droht-der-identitaetsverlust-1.3599725#redirectedFromLandingpage
#Post#: 7909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2017, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]We Are The Product! Cartoonish Evil From Equifax
(w/Guest Bill Black)[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/96u15E0kLv8[/center]
Sep. 12, 2017 2:33 pm
Thom talks to Professor Bill Black (professor of economics and
Law of Missouri-Kansas City and author) on the Equifax scandal
which may have put your sensitive information in the hands of
hackers, and you won't be able to find out either... unless you
give away your right to sue!
[center] [img width=200
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115234833.gif
[/center]
#Post#: 7999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 25, 2017, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Corporations
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
Don't Want Us As Customers We Are Their Products
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/uS9ByRLt8lM[/center]
Sep. 23, 2017 4:00 pm
Thom takes on the Equifax scandal to reveal a growing business
model where you are not the consumer but the product being
traded and sold by corporations.
#Post#: 8847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: January 17, 2018, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate
Culture
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif[/center]
January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley
[center][img
width=200]
HTML https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/01/Laurence-Fink.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Laurence D. Fink [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very
influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why?
Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more
than $6 trillion in assets. That’s the kind of clout that gets a
person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of
the major business corporations in the world received a letter
from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social
conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their
business.
A Letter, But So Much More
“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private,
serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must
not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it
makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit
all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees,
customers, and the communities in which they operate,” Fink
writes.
What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has
Milton Friedman’s bust been removed from the Economists’ Hall of
Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that
the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its
shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite,
but close.
BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many
cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does
not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which
includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the
company be more open about its exposure to climate change
related risks. That initiative would have failed without
BlackRock’s support.
What are the implications of Fink’s letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld,
a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells
the New York Times he has seen “nothing like it’’ before. “It
will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions
investing other people’s money,” he says. “It is huge for an
institutional investor to take this position across its
portfolio.‘‘
The Social License Concept
The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the
community may lose what is known as its “social license to
operate.” According to Investopedia, “The Social License to
Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance
of a company or industry’s standard business practices and
operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the
general public. The concept of social license is closely related
with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.
“Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over
time as the actions of a company build trust with the community
it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen
operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the
environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems
do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or
the social license to operate is put in danger.”
In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current
administration, saying “many governments [are] failing to
prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and
infrastructure to automation and worker retraining.” He added,
“As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private
sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal
challenges.” If a company fails to respond, however, “it will
ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”
A Contrary Opinion
Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink’s newfound social
conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a
story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described
Fink and others who think like him as “extraordinarily
hypocritical.” Zell heads one of the largest real estate
investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations
listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a
social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the
bottom line is the raison d’être of business and makes no
apology for his point of view.
“They talk about the fact that they’re in effect going to do
exactly what the market does,” says Zell, “and then they put up
public policy statements that suggest that they’re going to
advocate the market doing things other than what happens every
day. Either they’re a passive fund that follows the market or
they’re a leader that’s setting the tone. I didn’t know Larry
Fink had been made God.”
The Milton Friedman Fallacy
Zell’s remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social
responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the
New York Times, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has
responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities.
Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the
intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a
free society these past decades.” Ebenezer Scrooge couldn’t have
put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous
social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.
And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010,
in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court
blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free
speech because they are a “person” within the purview of the
Constitution. That “fact” was presumed by the court to be one of
those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary
intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts
an odd twist on Friedman’s pronouncement. If a corporation is
just another “person,” does it not follow that it owes the same
duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers,
skies, lakes, and oceans?
Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All
And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about
[size=12pt]untaxed negative externalties [/size]
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/16/carbon-fees-mystery-untaxed-negative-externality/<br
/>we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one
thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make
money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a
corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of
doing business so others have to pay them.
For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of
them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance
programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s
business. Why should that be the case? Why should “Always Low
Prices” translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the
general benefit of Walmart’s owners?
Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the
distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses
are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society,
not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn’t add up,
which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept.
Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is
cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his
letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won’t be
known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first
step and long overdue.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/
Agelbert COMMENT:
[quote]
Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the
distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses
are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society,
not just some.[/quote]
Exactly RIGHT! [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist.
Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new
"We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are
doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of
mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from
by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what
Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT
want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.
It's like this:
Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what
the leaders of society must do if they are serious about acting
in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline
the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but
the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments
on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who
are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though
they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for
what those actually DOING over 90% (about ONE percent of the
world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e.
environmental damage through government policies subsidizing
polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk
propaganda born of corporate corruption). [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img]
IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to
further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this
mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation
of Agency".
The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and
the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm.
"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with
Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and
eventually repair said harm.
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's
population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of
Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should
look like this:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212016.jpeg[/img][/center]
The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100
largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie
chart to look like is as follows:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212425.png[/img][/center]
The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers will try to
pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto
we-the-people.
We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of
visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.
What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our
Responsibility for the Future by Theresa Morris, State
University of New York at New Paltz
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg8731/#msg8731
#Post#: 8848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: January 17, 2018, 7:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=559.msg144725#msg144725
date=1516236363]
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=559.msg144722#msg144722
date=1516235509]
[center]BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate
Culture
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif[/center]
January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley
[center][img
width=200]
HTML https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/01/Laurence-Fink.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Laurence D. Fink [img
width=80]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very
influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why?
Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more
than $6 trillion in assets. That’s the kind of clout that gets a
person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of
the major business corporations in the world received a letter
from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social
conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their
business.
A Letter, But So Much More
“Society is demanding that companies, both public and private,
serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must
not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it
makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit
all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees,
customers, and the communities in which they operate,” Fink
writes.
What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has
Milton Friedman’s bust been removed from the Economists’ Hall of
Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that
the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its
shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite,
but close.
BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many
cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does
not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which
includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the
company be more open about its exposure to climate change
related risks. That initiative would have failed without
BlackRock’s support.
What are the implications of Fink’s letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld,
a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells
the New York Times he has seen “nothing like it’’ before. “It
will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions
investing other people’s money,” he says. “It is huge for an
institutional investor to take this position across its
portfolio.‘‘
The Social License Concept
The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the
community may lose what is known as its “social license to
operate.” According to Investopedia, “The Social License to
Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance
of a company or industry’s standard business practices and
operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the
general public. The concept of social license is closely related
with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.
“Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over
time as the actions of a company build trust with the community
it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen
operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the
environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems
do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or
the social license to operate is put in danger.”
In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current
administration, saying “many governments [are] failing to
prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and
infrastructure to automation and worker retraining.” He added,
“As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private
sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal
challenges.” If a company fails to respond, however, “it will
ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.”
A Contrary Opinion
Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink’s newfound social
conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a
story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described
Fink and others who think like him as “extraordinarily
hypocritical.” Zell heads one of the largest real estate
investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations
listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a
social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the
bottom line is the raison d’être of business and makes no
apology for his point of view.
“They talk about the fact that they’re in effect going to do
exactly what the market does,” says Zell, “and then they put up
public policy statements that suggest that they’re going to
advocate the market doing things other than what happens every
day. Either they’re a passive fund that follows the market or
they’re a leader that’s setting the tone. I didn’t know Larry
Fink had been made God.”
The Milton Friedman Fallacy
Zell’s remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social
responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the
New York Times, “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has
responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities.
Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the
intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a
free society these past decades.” Ebenezer Scrooge couldn’t have
put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous
social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.
And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010,
in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court
blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free
speech because they are a “person” within the purview of the
Constitution. That “fact” was presumed by the court to be one of
those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary
intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts
an odd twist on Friedman’s pronouncement. If a corporation is
just another “person,” does it not follow that it owes the same
duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers,
skies, lakes, and oceans?
Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All
And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about
[size=12pt]untaxed negative externalties [/size]
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/16/carbon-fees-mystery-untaxed-negative-externality/<br
/>we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one
thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make
money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a
corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of
doing business so others have to pay them.
For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of
them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance
programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart’s
business. Why should that be the case? Why should “Always Low
Prices” translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the
general benefit of Walmart’s owners?
Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the
distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses
are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society,
not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn’t add up,
which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept.
Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is
cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his
letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won’t be
known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first
step and long overdue.
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/
HTML https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/
Agelbert COMMENT:
[quote]
Milton Friedman’s “greed is good” philosophy may be the
distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses
are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society,
not just some.[/quote]
Exactly RIGHT! [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist.
Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new
"We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are
doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of
mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from
by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what
Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT
want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.
It's like this:
Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what
the leaders of society must do if they are serious about acting
in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline
the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but
the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments
on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who
are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though
they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for
what those actually DOING over 90% (about ONE percent of the
world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e.
environmental damage through government policies subsidizing
polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk
propaganda born of corporate corruption). [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png[/img]
IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to
further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this
mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation
of Agency".
The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and
the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm.
"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with
Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and
eventually repair said harm.
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's
population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of
Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should
look like this:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212016.jpeg[/img][/center]
The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100
largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie
chart to look like is as follows:
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240915212425.png[/img][/center]
The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers will try to
pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto
we-the-people.
We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of
visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.
What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our
Responsibility for the Future by Theresa Morris, State
University of New York at New Paltz
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg8731/#msg8731
[/quote]
I saw the headlines on the Fink story. I figured him for an
apologist looking to absolve himself of a little billionaire
guilt, so I didn't read it. Still, to me he compares very
favorably to the Mercers, Kochs, and Trumps of the world.
[/quote]
I don't think people who have become billionaires have a clue
what guilt is. The bill for all this biosphere damage is coming
due. They want to socialize the costs while continuing to
privatize the profits, period. Sure, their PR is better than
that of the in-your-face fascists like Mercer, Kochs, etc. et al
, but IMHO it's just CYA to set we-the-people up for the MASSIVE
(REALLY MASSIVE!) socialized costs that Catastrophic Climate
Change will, do not pass go, do not collect NOTHING, saddle
human civilization with.
I'm am not buying Fink's line UNLESS he puts a LOT of Climate
Change Mitigating Money where his mouth is. I have seen ZERO
evidence of that. Money talks, and bullshit walks.
#Post#: 8849--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: January 17, 2018, 8:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=34.msg8848#msg8848
date=1516239419]
[quote] from: Eddie on Today at 07:46:03 pm
I saw the headlines on the Fink story. I figured him for an
apologist looking to absolve himself of a little billionaire
guilt, so I didn't read it. Still, to me he compares very
favorably to the Mercers, Kochs, and Trumps of the
world.[/quote]
I don't think people who have become billionaires have a clue
what guilt is. The bill for all this biosphere damage is coming
due. They want to socialize the costs while continuing to
privatize the profits, period. Sure, their PR is better than
that of the in-your-face fascists like Mercer, Kochs, etc. et al
, but IMHO it's just CYA to set we-the-people up for the MASSIVE
(REALLY MASSIVE!) socialized costs that Catastrophic Climate
Change will, do not pass go, do not collect NOTHING, saddle
human civilization with.
I'm am not buying Fink's line UNLESS he puts a LOT of Climate
Change Mitigating Money where his mouth is. I have seen ZERO
evidence of that. Money talks, and bullshit walks.
[/quote]
[quote author=Eddie link=topic=559.msg144734#msg144734
date=1516239928]
The King is a Fink
Yeah, I guess so. I doubt he plans to give his fortune for
climate change mitigation. Or that he thinks through the process
of how guys like him have so much more impact on the environment
than most people, because their money supports a global
extractive colonial economy. He's just some amateur social
theorist with the bully pulpit that comes from being the richest
guy in the room most places he goes.
[/quote]
#Post#: 9455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 6, 2018, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=140]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png[/img]
[center]UK sugar tax starts today — here’s what it
means[/center]
LAST UPDATED ON APRIL 6TH, 2018 AT 6:46 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI
A groundbreaking sugar tax enters into force as of today in the
United Kingdom, which joins a handful of other countries which
have already introduced similar taxes.
Much more than cavities
Sugar has been linked to a number of health issues. A 2003 World
Health Organization (WHO) technical report provided evidence
that high intake of sugary drinks (including fruit juice)
increased the risk of obesity, and since then, the evidence has
piled on. Simply put, eating lots of sugar makes you fat, and if
you’re thinking ‘but I don’t really eat that much sugar’ — then
think again. Sugar is embedded into a surprisingly large number
of processed foods, popping up in most things you’ll find on the
shelves. Not least of all, sugar is typically present in large
quantities in sugary drinks, and, as a result, sugary drinks are
one of the main drivers for obesity in several countries.
Backed by a mountain of scientific evidence, the WHO says that
society needs to curb its consumption of sugar to fight the
upcoming obesity pandemic — and this is where the sugar tax
comes in.
The levy will be applied to manufacturers, and whether they will
pass it on consumers or support the tax themselves is up to
them. From now on, drinks with a sugar content higher than 5g
per 100ml will be taxed 18p ($0.25) per liter, and drinks with
8g or more will be taxed 24p ($0.34). The tax is expected to act
on several fronts.
Firstly, manufacturers are expected to reduce the sugar content
of their products, which many have already started doing (Fanta,
Ribena, and Lucozade have cut the sugar content of drinks, but
Coca-Cola has not).
Secondly, consumers are expected to be somewhat dissuaded by
potentially higher prices, and therefore reduce their
consumption.
Lastly, an expected revenue of £240m ($340) is expected to be
raked by the government — that money will be invested in schools
sports and breakfast clubs.
However, products such as cakes, biscuits and other foods are
not covered by the tax.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Of course, taxes are never popular, and so far reactions have
been mixed. Many argue that having a Coke or whatever other
sugary drink is a personal choice and shouldn’t be taxed —
however, similar taxes have long been applied to alcohol and
tobacco (among others) in most parts of the world. Similar taxes
have been applied successfully in countries like France, Norway,
or Denmark.
It’s important to note that a recent study has shown that the
sugar industry was aware of the negative health effects of sugar
for decades, but it simply swept them under the rug.
[size=24pt]😠[/size]
Coca-Cola has been under fire since 2015 when emails revealed
that funding for scientific studies sought to influence research
to be more favorable to soda, and research funded by soda
companies is 34 times more likely to find soda has no
significant health impacts on obesity or diabetes.
HTML https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/uk-sugar-tax-award-06042018/
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page