Cross-hybridization is one thing. Patenting a cow you found in Africa and then suing the life out of the original tribe is the Monsanto way. Or, changing one gene and then claiming ownership of all corn in the US and then suing small farmers when their crops get contaminated (and of course, denying it) is GMO. The fight against GMO isn't always a "health" concern about wanting to stay truer to our millions of years of evolution and cohabitation with certain foods. It's also about fighting against mega-corperations that unfairly target small farmers with regulations such as requiring white painted walls . . . yearly, or requiring an office and bathroom for a health inspector to use once a year that no one else can use ever, or so many laws and regulations that a small farmer can inadvertently break the law, steal someone's intellectual property and be sued out of existence all while doing the same thing their family has been doing for over 100 years.

When we plant crops of only one variety over large swathes of land we invite disaster. It's already happen numerous times. Hell, no one remember deadly spinach killing around 50 people with no way to trace the origin? Mad Cow? Or the destruction of economies in their world countries because Monsanto requires only their crop to be grown and subsistence farmers into the ghetto's of India so that more High Fructose Corn Syrup can be made.

Or worse . . . the US Farm Bill . . . *shivers*

So no, it's not always about health. It's about staying true to the roots of a society that worships our farmers as life-givers, essential to our health and economy and free of unknown risk that could catastrophically damage the world as we know it all while ending a giant untouchable monopoly that refuses to let even the tiniest bit of oversight oversee it's operations so it can continue to "own life."

If that is all true (and I read through much of the linked study and made little sense of it since I'm not a nutritionist and only took one semester of advanced molecular biology, it was particularly technical and hard to follow), then golden rice seems to be the exception.
As I read it, 55-70% the RDA was the maximum vitamin A that could be expected, with the range being quite large. (oddly they cite a 200 gram rice dose given in the study has 1.3mg b-carotene/3.8 to get .34mg retinol, then a 100 gram dose is estimated to provide 55-70% EAR , then they say a 50 gram dose, a more reasonable amount for children to eat, would provide the same amount as the 100 gram dose did?) Even if it can supply 1/2 the daily allowance of vitamin A (which I'm not sure it can from the study you cite), that still does not make it 'safe' to release into the 'wild', or 'better' than natural, easy to grow alternatives as unknown long term side effects have not been studied. It may be better than doing nothing, or even better than natural alternatives, but without long term studies we simply can't know. That's my main point.
$10K a year is not much for a farm to make, most small farms make far more than that, but also need to spend all they make to keep going. That limit seems to say they DO intend to charge most farmers for this seed eventually. If that's $10K a year profit, I'm OK with that.
I would say we should hold up potentially life saving technology until we know the unintended side effects, we should not experiment on the needy (or the public in general) and claim it's in their best interest. We certainly should not do it in secret, as in non-labeled gmo's.
Monsanto is not the only bio-tech company that acts like this, just the most public. Most GMO creating bio-techs are pitbulls about protecting their 'intellectual property', even when it floats onto someone's property without their knowledge.
I stand corrected, she did say that. I missed it. I do not claim they don't have higher yields, I think that's their whole point and I think they do a decent job of producing more. I just don't see that higher yields are worth the possible long term damage and I think more, longer term, double blind studies need to be done by disinterested parties. Long term side effects can take a long time to show up, and with something this new to the food source, it deserves careful consideration, not profit driven usage.
Again, 'golden rice' is an exception if you are correct. My limited experience is with Monsanto corn and soy, which seem to be in a different category. Most GMOs are not made with variety, and ARE made to have a clear adaptive advantage, so I made an assumption that 'golden rice' would be the same. My bad. Even with that though, the genes WILL end up mixing with some other non-gmo rice, making it difficult or impossible to ensure your crop is not gmo of that's what you want. They may not dominate, but if they end up causing cancer in 10 years, and by then 99% of rice is 'contaminated', then what? I just think safety (edit: I meant to say forethought) is the better part of valor, and better that a few go without today than open the possibility of all going without tomorrow when patience and thoughtful examination can prove safety. Of course, I'm not going blind of vitamin A deficiency or starving from lack of corn...so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter.
To a few of your other points, if gmo's are safe, prove it (Monsanto and the like) and do it incontrovertibly and publicly, then we'll all want them. If the argument is that 'stupid hippies have convinced everyone they're bad, so we have to sell them in secret', that argument doesn't hold water in my mind. Monsanto could certainly afford a public service campaign if the science was in, but the LONG term studies aren't done yet.
Teaching someone to grow peppers or other vegi's seems easier than modifying a crop and spreading the seeds, it takes about 5 minutes and adds variety. I think that's better than treating them as un-teachable and experimenting on them.
...and I agree with the scientists in sciencemag, destroying the test fields isn't helpful and answers nothing.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

@Trancecoach
ok.fair enough.
the reasons why i was making the religion analogy is due to your bullet form responses.
your outright deflecting when points are made...shifting the goal posts to meet your criteria.
you point to the UE and i counter with sweden and finland,basically i used your own premise and your response? not good enough.move those goal posts!

you know who else argues exactly the same way? religious fundamentalists.
so i was just being a bit cheeky with ya and i assumed (wrongly it appears) that you would take it in the spirit it was meant..busting your balls.

my sadness resided in the slow realization that our conversation was one-sided.

that no matter what idea i put forth would be met with the same tactics and it assumes i wish to change your mind.i dont but i truly did want to understand you.
and your replies have been informative and i have a much better understanding now.
that is something i appreciate.
but you were talking at me,not with me.
and you did ignore my questions in regards to the darker side of capitalism.

so i dont know what you thought i was projecting onto you.i was expressing sadness and that i felt foolish.

with my newfound understanding of our relationship and your willingness to address those questions that were left unanswered.

let us begin:
1.we hear so much about the "producers" of wealth and industry.would you admit that this wealth is not gained alone but is in fact the result of a multitude of people,services and infrastructure?
a.if yes.are you willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
b.if no.explain.

2.in a free market with no regulation,how would society keep the financial industry in check?

3.do you believe in democracy? if so,then what is wrong with regulations?

4.since we both know the vast corporate wealth we have been witnessing is due to corporations influencing government policy.should these corporations be dissolved completely?or is it government that needs to be expunged? and what would be your solution to fill that void?

5.in a free market intellectual property is an oxymoron,as is copyright.how do you suggest to rid us of those things?

6.isnt democracy a form of free market?

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties, @eric3579. The U.S. most certainly has one of the most fucked up healthcare industries in the industrialized world.

But instead of socialism, why not give a free market a chance, instead? What we have now, is anything but a free market. Intellectual Property, regulations, and a lack of any real accurate economic calculations sets the stage for some wide fluctuations in health care (in terms of access, cost, and quality of care). Sadly, while @Yogi is correct in saying that fraud is not unique to socialism, socialism is burdened with a lack of any real economic calculation (as to what things are supposed to cost). Thus, you have the kinds of costs you're describing.

Interestingly, the article stated, "he discovered that health care costs are largely arbitrary, inflated, and unfair. “The health care market is not a market at all. It’s a crapshoot,” he concluded. “Everyone fares differently based on circumstances they can neither control nor predict.”

This isn't surprising. Without a free market, we have no real prices. We don't need socialism. We need economic calculation.

The article goes on to say, "health care costs are largely arbitrary, inflated, and unfair. “The health care market is not a market at all"

I couldn't have said it better. “The health care market is not a market at all."

Or as Hayek says in the "rap battle" music video (floating on the sift somewhere), "We need stable rules and real market prices, so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis."

I mean, in an admittedly infinite multiverse separated primarily by rights to various intellectual property... anything is possible when those rights cease to violate each other.

This is better than gay marriage!

Monsanto has sued individual farmers that have obviously and intentionally preserved seeds from their fields that border Monsanto-bred fields. Even with such a willful and intentional violation, they've never won, and have had to pay all court costs. ZERO farmers have had to pay out-of-pocket because of Monsanto's legislation, despite several admitting to being out-of-bounds.

So, yeah, Monsanto sues people, some are shady, others not, but Monsanto hasn't made a dime, and with a mountain of precedence, it never will... but it does have to sue in order to be seen as "protecting" it's Intellectual Property. I don't think Monsanto is a "Good Guy"... it's a corporation and is only interested in increasing shareholder value.

I'm as liberal as you get, but I'm against GMO legislation without proof that GMO has health concerns. I feel like I'm rather consistent... I don't want to ban weapons, cars, marijuana or smoking unless and until it's been proven through studies to cause death. Weapons, cars and smoking have an inordinate amount of death associated with their use. The chance of a gun accident in a household with guns is INFINITELY higher than one without guns.

Anyways, the point is that there have not been peer-reviewed studies that show that GMO is in any way dangerous. I do believe that corporate-controlled life is dangerous, however.

Keep GMO, get rid of Monsanto. If you're against Monsanto, be against Monsanto... You won't win any battles by going against GMO, as it makes you sound as absurd as creationists, anti-vaxers or wifi-allergists.

About this film, to just highlight some of the heights of absurdity that the so-called intellectual property (which isn't really "property" at all in any consistent definition of the word) can reach, here's something an anti-IP expert, Stephan Kinsella (who, as it happens, is, ironically, also an IP lawyer) said about this new movie, 'Oz the Great and Powerful':

"So, for IP reasons, it's not technically a prequel to the 1939 movie by MGM. This is a Disney film, and it has to follow the original Baum books, not the 1939 movie. That's why in one scene, the witch in the new movie doesn't say "my pretties." She says something like "my pretty ... one." And that's why MGM and Disney lawyers had to meet to come to an agreement on what shade of green was permitted on the skin of the bad witch in the new movie. And that's why no reference to Dorothy's ruby slippers was permitted (that was from the 1939 movie, not the book, which had silver slippers). So once again, copyright distorts culture and life and meaning."

I wonder if they paid license fees for the music they used, since they are really into the intellectual property protection and all

and having hit a big rock under deep snow with a snowboard, I am really certain I would not want to do that with that truck...

If you read the language carefully:

"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

It says it does not "easily" equate with the definition, it doesn't say it does not equate at all. Obviously there is equivilence between theft and taking something that does not belong to you. You can steal something without depriving someone of physical property. You can steal an idea, for instance. You can steal someones identity. You can also steal data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_asset

Intellectual property is considered an intangible asset, meaning that while it has no real physical existence, the time or effort placed into it makes it a seperate asset. This includes intellectual property. Since the content creators have exclusive rights to their intellectual property, you are causing a loss to their intangible assets. Therefore, it is theft.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^NetRunner:
Soooo...instead of trying to pass laws that limit corporate power, we should stop bothering and give corporations unlimited ability to do whatever they like with the internet they claim they own, and the intellectual property they claim to own?
Didn't mean to imply that, just that it doesn't matter how we try to regulate corporate power until we do something about the sway they hold over the government who would regulate them.


The two things are not mutually exclusive -- if we rally enough people to an anti-corporate cause, then we've laid the groundwork for a movement that might have the ability to de-corporatize our government in a more general way.

>> ^NetRunner:

Soooo...instead of trying to pass laws that limit corporate power, we should stop bothering and give corporations unlimited ability to do whatever they like with the internet they claim they own, and the intellectual property they claim to own?

Didn't mean to imply that, just that it doesn't matter how we try to regulate corporate power until we do something about the sway they hold over the government who would regulate them.

Soooo...instead of trying to pass laws that limit corporate power, we should stop bothering and give corporations unlimited ability to do whatever they like with the internet they claim they own, and the intellectual property they claim to own?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

In the long run giving government more control over the internet is just giving corporations control over the internet plus legal muscle to enforce their chosen censorship. Where do you think SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, DMCA, etc came from?

Thanks. I will watch it later.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
now its working

In reply to this comment by ant:
Hmm, this video is not available yet. :

now its working

In reply to this comment by ant:
Hmm, this video is not available yet. :