Perhaps banning corporate farms would be a reasonable measure though. In fact banning all major corporations might be a good long term goal. They obviously can not be trusted.

Public corporations can be trusted to obey the fiduciary duty to shareholders. Perhaps it is the fiduciary duty to shareholders that should be subordinated.

---

... legally bound not to care. ...

And your solution to the sinking ship, NOT involving nuking everything, is?

'Twas I who asked you how to solve the global population problem. I know you don't like mine, but you haven't said they would not work.

I point out some problems in talking about it -- negotiated -- solutions. Is reproduction an inalienable right? If it is, how can you justify government control of an inalienable right without letting government control all inalienable rights? Assuming government can control it, can you educate the moron sufficiently that he will agree a limit is in his self interest? Is this something that will have to be imposed by force?

I'd love to hear a different solution, one that actually works from a real world as it exists engineering standpoint. Preferably one that works not only today but 10,000 years in the future.

---

Perhaps banning corporate farms would be a reasonable measure though. In fact banning all major corporations might be a good long term goal. They obviously can not be trusted.

Public corporations can be trusted to obey the fiduciary duty to shareholders. Perhaps it is the fiduciary duty to shareholders that should be subordinated.

Public corporations can not be trusted. More often than not the board and CEO operate in their own interest at the expense of share holders, up to and including destroying company reputation(intangibles) and long term success to reward themselves for short term profit.

Smaller companies and individuals still take pride in what they produce. That is how they get started. Or failing that they collapse.

---

Janice

... Is reproduction an inalienable right? ...

Moderation effects should come into play in that parents should first be able to feel that they can successfully reproduce and support offspring before adding more mouths to feed. Unfortunately, that seems to be subverted by various societies and cultures. Also, women are widely badly abused...

I'd love to hear a different solution, one that actually works from a real world as it exists engineering standpoint. Preferably one that works not only today but 10,000 years in the future.

Better education and a cultural shift?... That works very well for some parts of the world.

Also, a careful political approach to certain parts of the world. We should not simply blindly only feed a continuing problem. There has to be education and political and cultural change also. No nukes necessary but certainly a shift in opinion and religion is needed...


There is some highly public comment for a small part of our world:

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth

... “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” ...


Note: That still doesn't suggest anything about nuking anything.

All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Public corporations can not be trusted. More often than not the board and CEO operate in their own interest at the expense of share holders, up to and including destroying company reputation(intangibles) and long term success to reward themselves for short term profit.

Their reporting period is a per quarter basis. They do quite well maximizing this. Remember shareholders buy and sell all the time in a public company, there is no need to be long term as is the case with an unregistered company whose shares can not be traded. The only long term investors in a public company are likely to be the board itself via the stock options plan which is their salary. Also do not forget that TV has significantly shortened the attention span of the average human so one quarters damage to reputation is quickly forgotten today. You need to understand the nature of the beast if you expect to control it.

---

I'd love to hear a different solution, one that actually works from a real world as it exists engineering standpoint. Preferably one that works not only today but 10,000 years in the future.

Better education and a cultural shift?... That works very well for some parts of the world.

Also, a careful political approach to certain parts of the world. We should not simply blindly only feed a continuing problem. There has to be education and political and cultural change also. No nukes necessary but certainly a shift in opinion and religion is needed...

So you are admitting the problem can't be solved by education alone. Cultural change is not easy to engineer in many places. I believe that was tried in Russia after the Tsars. I suppose something like it will have to be imposed in those areas where Sharia presently exists.

---

Public corporations can not be trusted. More often than not the board and CEO operate in their own interest at the expense of share holders, up to and including destroying company reputation(intangibles) and long term success to reward themselves for short term profit.

Their reporting period is a per quarter basis. They do quite well maximizing this. Remember shareholders buy and sell all the time in a public company, there is no need to be long term as is the case with an unregistered company whose shares can not be traded. The only long term investors in a public company are likely to be the board itself via the stock options plan which is their salary. Also do not forget that TV has significantly shortened the attention span of the average human so one quarters damage to reputation is quickly forgotten today. You need to understand the nature of the beast if you expect to control it.

Sacrificing the long term outlook for short term gains favors traders, not investors. This is not in the best interest of the investors, the vast majority of share holders.

This does in fact occur, and is exactly why corporations can not be trusted. ESPECIALLY with our food supply.

---

Janice

Sacrificing the long term outlook for short term gains favors traders, not investors. This is not in the best interest of the investors, the vast majority of share holders.

You might be surprised to learn that today the vast majority of stock is controlled by traders and not investors. It has changed how the stock market acts and how corporations do business.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/06/who-owns-the-u-s-equity-market/

Note that hedge funds are included in the 36% of households slice.
All the other slices are controlled by traders, that is 64% of the market.

---

no, most of the rest of the pie is not controlled(held) by traders. Traders by their nature are opportunists. They only want to be in for the up portion, and often through hard times push down the prices even further than natural.

Hedge Funds are filled with the opportunists that will take advantage of any movement. Mutual funds, ETF's, Insurance(people that really should update their investment methods)and the privately held(includes direct controlled IRA/401K/ are the people that actually INVEST. That is the vast majority of the market. Hedge funds and traders have no issue with stomping a good idea into the dirt to make a quick buck.

That said.. this is not about food and is completely off topic. Unless you want to tell me we should eat whatever they try to feed us for the benefit of traders(spell that any way you want) and hedge funds.

What is being slid into our burgers was often used in commercial grade Bologna,
which is what it all is. They are still feeding us Bologna.

Ground chuck is in my freezer. What is in yours?

---

Janice

Insurance(people that really should update their investment methods)and the privately held(includes direct controlled IRA/401K/ are the people that actually INVEST.

You should read a prospectus from a mutual fund company. It is all about who the investment manager or trader is.

---

I personally avoid mutual funds. Again this thread is about our food, our food supply, and the safety of it. Please try to focus.

---

Janice

Lets stay focused on food please.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Lets stay focused on food please.

Good idea...

So is such sliminess such a good idea?:


Horsemeat cancer fears raised by Labour

A drug that can potentially cause cancer in humans may have entered the food chain via horses slaughtered...

... Ms Creagh told Mr Heath in the Commons: "I am in receipt of evidence showing that several horses slaughtered in UK abattoirs last year tested positive for phenylbutazone, or bute, a drug which causes cancer in humans and is banned from the human food chain.

"It is possible that those animals entered the human food chain." ...



All for corporate and/or personal greed?

All on our planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

"Due to health concerns over the quality of the meat contained in many commercially produced sausages (heightened by the BSE crisis in the 1990s) there has been a marked improvement in the quality of meat content in commonly available British sausages with a return to the artisanal production of high quality traditional recipes, which had previously been in decline. However many of the cheaper sausages available use mechanically recovered meat or meat slurry.

There are various laws concerning the meat content of sausages in the UK. The minimum meat content to be labelled Pork Sausages is 42% (30% for other types of meat sausages), although to be classed as meat, the Pork can contain 30% fat and 25% connective tissue. Often the cheapest supermarket pork sausages do not have the necessary meat content to be described as Pork Sausages and are simply labelled 'Sausages'. These typically contain MRM which under EU law can no longer be described as meat
"

MRM(Mechanically recovered Meat) is known in the USA by the USDA as "Lean Finely Textured Pork", the pig version of pink slime. A way to slip additional connective tissues and fat back into the sausage and call it "meat".

Even if it is not horse, it can be a very dangerous practice.

---

Janice

It is pink, therefore it is meat.~USDA

---

Janice

While said of another class of corporations, it applies to all the ones making pink slime:
Jim Sleeper and Daniel J.H. Greenwood in The Atlantic wrote:

The problem isn't that the profit-driven, legally constrained corporations driving violent entertainment are malevolent; it's that they're civically mindless. They're inherently incapable of free speech because the positions they take are just the result of fiduciaries -- directors, managers and public relations officers -- attempting to maximize stock value without regard to their own values, or anyone else's. Advances in manipulative advertising and a narrow focus on profit have made them runaway engines that can't be persuaded by rational or moral appeals to stop inciting exaggerated fears of armed home invasion, government takeovers, or fantasies of victory by gunplay. So long as the law and stock market demand they pursue profit, and selling guns and vengeance remains profitable, they'll keep doing it.

Perhaps someone other than myself pointing out the real issue is fiduciaries doing their legal duty. This is raw legal ethics unleashed on the world.

Citizens United needs to be overturned and if need be by amendment to make it clear that the grantor of a corporation, the State Government, is issuing a license and may place whatever constraints on that license it pleases.

---

+1 Gary.

---

#resist

Gary, you are sounding a bit like a subversive.

---

Gary, you are sounding a bit like a subversive.

No, only want to make changes through legal means. Overturning Citizens United is very important and if everyone would write their representatives and tell them this is important to them and that they are registered voters ... change can happen.


Subversive, moi? Might be the only one here who was a on a list of names deposited with a special master as a Doe plaintiff suing the US Attorney General for injunctive relief. Relief was granted. Appellate court agreed. Congress promptly changed the law to make it moot before it made SCOTUS. Oh suing the US AG isn't to be taken lightly, it makes you a target.

---

Gary, LOL, trying to make logical and fair changes through legal means is by definition subversive.

---