Monsanto?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I am familiar with Pilger. Which is why I regard his opinions with skepticism.

That's a shame. I have a healthy respect for him, his last film, Utopia, is essential viewing. Having said that, I don't feel particularly favourably towards his position on Assange.
 
Yeah, and then not even knowing if and how much is true... :lol:

I confess that I did not know much about the Monsanto allegations – as is apparent by the subject of this thread. Note the question mark. I was asking if U2 fans know whether this allegation is true or not. I was looking for clarification regarding this allegation. While it's so funny (":lol:" etc.) that I don't know if and how much is true regarding the Bono-Monsanto controversy, what is equally "funny" is that nobody on this forum has yet been able to convince me either way.

Meanwhile, while not having answers to my own Bono-Monsanto question, I think I articulated a strong argument against most of Bono's development discourse, which has troubled me for some time. Recently hearing of an alleged Bono-Monsanto connection is potentially the final straw for me and this prompted my post. What is worrying about much of Bono's development discourse is that what he does do and what he does say suggests that it's not unlikely that Bono would, in theory, stand on the side of Monsanto. He would say people need food and he would turn a blind eye to social injustice.

So, my ignorance might be funny, but we all seem to be ignorant on this issue of Bono-Monsanto. The level of complacency troubles me. It's just a rumour and there's no proof etc. So, we go on as normal. Great new U2 tour. etc. What's your favourite setlist? Etc. According to Bono, "People got the power". This forum as a collective of hundreds (thousands?) of U2 fans surely has the power to demand a response from Bono on the subject of Monsanto.

Or shall we not bother?
 
My "pure evil" comment was about Bank of America and banks in general, and I stand by my bewilderment regarding U2 publicising them as a good thing for Africa.

I work for a bank.

Screw you if you think the company I work for is really pure evil.

Or are you suggesting that I, a "banker", am myself pure evil?


This forum as a collective of hundreds (thousands?) of U2 fans surely has the power to demand a response from Bono on the subject of Monsanto.

You're delusional if you think a bunch of anonymous idiots on an Internet message board have the power to demand anything from Bono.
 

Studying the archaeology of the merging of companies and subsequent changes and so on etc etc tells us a lot about how corporations are run and so on... But it can also be smoke and mirrors.

Quote: "Monsanto (the seed company) was distinct from Monsanto (the chemical company), with its own bylaws, a different board of directors, and different management from Monsanto (the chemical company)."

Question: But who were the shareholders? Yes there were distinctions, but what were the similarities and the connections?

I could spend the next two hours doing a discourse analysis of this text, but please can someone else? I came here to ask questions and maybe I've said enough already...
 
I am familiar with Pilger. Which is why I regard his opinions with skepticism.

Ok, so let's get specific and not be questioning John Pilger's entire career. Who else has reported on Jeffrey Sachs's questionable work in Bolivia?

Jeffrey Sachs - not very impartial
Naomi Klein - much the same conclusion as Pilger.
And?

I've spoken to Bolivians whose first-hand assessment matches the quote from Pilger which I posted yesterday.

So while we can be sceptical about Pilger in some cases, in this particular case, let's hold our scepticism and do some more research?
 
I work for a bank.

Screw you if you think the company I work for is really pure evil.

Or are you suggesting that I, a "banker", am myself pure evil?

Another assumption / knee-jerk reaction. I think humans have the potential to be good and bad. We make choices about what we do with our time and which direction we want to go. I don't believe that people who work for banks are necessarily evil. Just as I don't believe that one footballer makes an amazing football team. The sum of the parts, plus all kinds of momentum, and the runaway nature of certain forms of capitalism.

You're delusional if you think a bunch of anonymous idiots on an Internet message board have the power to demand anything from Bono.

And Bono is not delusional to think that a bunch of U2 fans in Western countries, buying CDs, T-shirts and going to concerts, can persuade governments to implement certain policies with regards to Africa?

Of course U2 fans on a forum have collective power. It's all about the market, as Bono would say. There's a place for the market and the placard, as Bono would say.

When the last U2 album came out, U2 fans were invited to ask questions which they answered on youtube or whatever. What do you think about Monsanto or what is your favourite colour? Hmmm.

U2 are on tour and have a heavy schedule of interviews each day or week. Do we not know journalists? Does nobody on this forum have any connections? And so on?

Delusional? Maybe I was inspired by Bono in my youth. Sorry.
 
DaveC, banks are evil. Doesn't mean everyone working for them is evil, but what do you call a company that, in yet another year of record profits

A) fires employees
B) brings in temporary foreign workers because they get paid less
C) asks the employees that are going to be out of work to train those that are replacing them?

Or another bank that fires workers during a year of record profits? This happens all the time. Banks increase fees to increase profits, and fire as many workers as they can, or out source them to a country that pays lower wages.

Banks are fucking evil. They are built to exploit. Just the same as McDonalds - evil. But people need to work, and there aren't a lot of well paying jobs out there anymore (thanks to economic policies recommended by banks and economists).

Or there's the "financial crisis" aka implementing the shock doctrine. Wasn't that just a little bit evil? And it wasn't caused by isolated cases or a bad apple, as news hacks like to say, but by institutionalized greet that borders on psychopathy.
 
In other words yes, you think my employer is literally evil.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fuck you, dude.

EDIT: that goes for both of you.
 
Last edited:
Well what bank do you work for? Why don't you tell us about how your bank doesn't fire people when it makes record profits, or doesn't exploit its customers?

Or how about this: fuck you on behalf of the thousands of people Canadian banks have fired while raking in record profits. And fuck you on behalf of all the people who lost their homes and savings because of predatory lending and flat-out lying.

Buddy, there's a reason that people hate banks and bankers. I'm not saying you're evil, but your employer? If it's like most other banks, then yeah: it's evil.
 
Last edited:
My final thoughts for today before I have to go and get some work done!

Please think about this: Bono claims to know what's going on in Africa. He tells U2 fans and many U2 fans believe him. Some are critical. Others don't care. Some think they can’t collectively ask a question of Bono on a subject that he has been lecturing us about for the past 40 [correction: 30] years. Some think that a belief in being able to ask this question collectively is “delusional”.

This all amounts to consent. Consent from those who believe Bono knows the truth and is a force for good. Consent from those who don’t care. Consent from those who don’t challenge him even if they are critical. This consent means that Bono has the power to speak to world leaders on the basis of his supposed knowledge on the subject of Africa. But it's not really his knowledge on the subject. University professors with 40-year careers don’t easily get a meeting with Bush or Obama or the Pope. Bono’s power is primarily because of the weight he carries in terms of support from U2 fans. Consent. Consent to be the spokesperson for U2 fans on the subject of Africa. U2 fans give Bono all of this power. All of it.

So there is a bizarre disjointed loop of hegemonic power occurring here. The audience is predominantly influenced directly by the speaker on a particular topic that most of the audience knows nothing about. The speaker gains the consent of the audience which assumes the speaker to be correct and ethical. The speaker then uses that consent to exercise power and influence in other circles. Western politicians. The results show up in Africa. But what Bono is advocating is what Bono thinks is right for Africa. U2 fans stand by him. The majority of Africans don't have a voice.

And now I am told that we, the audience that has “given U2 a great life”, are delusional to think that we can collectively ask Bono for a response regarding Monsanto? Has Bono not been advocating for Amnesty International – the power of the letter writing campaign – for the past 30 years? Is the work of Amnesty International “delusional”?

Addition: What I should have said in the third paragraph: Bono claims to be speaking on behalf of African people. We can see this is not true because he claims that there is a consensus of opinion (on development issues) within and between African countries (see my post yesterday). Most of the U2 audience nods in agreement of what Bono thinks (what Bono thinks the African people think and want) because we don't know any better than him. So we give him the consent to speak on our behalf. That's not exactly informed consent. Then he speaks to the media and to politicians and claims to be speaking on behalf of the U2 audience AND the African people (who have apparently reached a consensus). Isn’t this somehow more like a cult than a political / social movement?
 
Last edited:
I could spend the next two hours doing a discourse analysis of this text, but please can someone else? I came here to ask questions and maybe I've said enough already...

I think it's great that you're asking questions, but you're also saying "this is the final straw" while you're asking such questions. You're already laying blame and judgement before you have the full answers. You have a lot of tidbits, some half-truths, and no I don't think you've laid out a compelling argument.

I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
In other words yes, you think my employer is literally evil.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Fuck you, dude.

EDIT: that goes for both of you.

Charming! Seems like a loyal employer [correction: EMPLOYEE] in the running for employee of the year!
But seriously, please can we not reduce the discussion to anger and telling each other to fuck off etc. It's not helpful.
Why not try to persuade HOLLOW ISALND why they are, in your opinion, wrong about banks? The fact that you don't give a serious argument and start telling people "fuck you" suggests that you don't have much to say.
 
Last edited:
I think it's great that you're asking questions, but you're also saying "this is the final straw" while you're asking such questions. You're already laying blame and judgement before you have the full answers. You have a lot of tidbits, some half-truths, and no I don't think you've laid out a compelling argument.

I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is the FIRST TIME I have mentioned the word "Sachs". Here's the second time: "Sachs".
In other words, you are mixing up posts from different people.
Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music. But the fact that I don't have time to do a full discourse analysis of the text in question doesn't mean I am saying it's the final straw. I am simply saying I should really get on with some work now. [Addition: Get some work done now, and not totally dominate the discussion in this thread by commenting on absolutely everything before anyone else gets the opportunity]

If you don't believe I have made a compelling argument, please engage with it and help me to develop my understanding. It's so boring to be told, "No, you're wrong" but then have nothing to go on. It's like marking an essay 30/100 but giving no feedback. Tell me, regarding my long post of 25th June, what is not compelling? What is not convincing? It would be really helpful for me to get other opinions. Otherwise, I can't help thinking I'm right, and that's no good if I;m wrong. I'll end up like Bono :lol:
 
Last edited:
This is the FIRST TIME I have mentioned the word "Sachs". Here's the second time: "Sachs".

In other words, you are mixing up posts from different people.

Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music. But the fact that I don't have time to do a full discourse analysis of the text in question doesn't mean I am saying it's the final straw. I am simply saying I should really get on with some work now.



If you don't believe I have made a compelling argument, please engage with it and help me to develop my understanding. It's so boring to be told, "No, you're wrong" but then have nothing to go on. It's like marking an essay 30/100 but giving no feedback. Tell me, regarding my long post of 25th June, what is not compelling? What is not convincing? It would be really helpful for me to get other opinions. Otherwise, I can't help thinking I'm right, and that's no good if I;m wrong. I'll end up like Bono :lol:


You don't remember mentioning Sachs? You don't remember saying you're done? Well then we have much bigger issues.

I'm not going to dissect your long post and go point by point, I don't have the time right now and I'm on my phone.

But from a macro level you seem to be throwing shit on a wall and seeing what sticks, in other words, you're all over the place. Banks are evil, Monsanto may or may not be evil and Bono may or may not be "shilling", we're consenting, his guru is wrong(even though I can't remember bringing him up). I think you should focus more and people may start to engage more.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Hi Hawkmoon,
You're right, but you are quoting me out of context since I already answered my own question. I said, "Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that? Ok, I said I have had enough of Bono's political crap and it's putting me off the music".

Elsewhere I said that the Monsanto rumour, if true, is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's just that when BVS commented that I said "final straw" etc., it appeared to be in reference to something else I said. I was trying to clear up confusion....etc.
 
You don't remember mentioning Sachs? You don't remember saying you're done? Well then we have much bigger issues.

I'm not going to dissect your long post and go point by point, I don't have the time right now and I'm on my phone.

But from a macro level you seem to be throwing shit on a wall and seeing what sticks, in other words, you're all over the place. Banks are evil, Monsanto may or may not be evil and Bono may or may not be "shilling", we're consenting, his guru is wrong(even though I can't remember bringing him up). I think you should focus more and people may start to engage more.

Hilarious! I take it all back! For some reason, the discussion of banks was making me think of Goldman Sachs. For a moment, I forgot all about Jeffrey! Sorry about that.

I take your point. When I get time I will try to summarise my main points. But it can preliminarily be framed as: "I have serious reservation about Bono's knowledge of development issues in Africa, the ways in which he depoliticises development issues, his involvement with corporations with questionable ethics and which might be harmful to many Africans, and the ways in which U2 fans do or don't give him power and consent to speak on our behalf".
 
I mean to lump Sachs in your whole neoliberalism argument is just plain odd.


Sorry, one last thing. Now that I have recalled Jeffrey Sachs and stopped thinking about Goldman Sachs, can you please tell me why this is just plain odd? Jeffrey Sachs is an advocate of neoliberal envelopment practices, after all. And that's understating it. So I don't understand why this seems odd?
 
Ok, this really IS my final comment today. I just look back on a few of my comments. For example:

"Did I say "this is the final straw"? When did I say that?"

It comes across as potentially angry and aggressive, argumentative, etc. Actually, that was not the tone of the voice in my head when typing hastily. Sometimes hastily written words in emails and on forums are not good communication. Suffice to say that I'll try not to let my writing be so ambiguous in future on this forum! Sorry if some of my comments might appear to be aggressive. That's not the intention or real meaning.

Ok, going to be exceptionally busy for a few days, and absent from this doscussion. Have a good weekend everyone! :wave:
 
Cool it, Dave.

Thanks for ignoring Hollow Island saying "fuck you" to me as well in the very next post.

:slant:

I take exception to strangers who have no idea what I or my employer actually do telling me that what me and my friends do for a living is directly contributing to the promotion of evil in the world.

I'm outta here. Back to being another cog in the machine of pure malevolence :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Both WideAwake and I said that people who work for banks aren't necessarily evil....

You could explain what you do and state why your bank is not evil, and you've done nothing to explain why the banking practices I singled out as objectionable are in fact not.
 
Sorry, one last thing. Now that I have recalled Jeffrey Sachs and stopped thinking about Goldman Sachs, can you please tell me why this is just plain odd? Jeffrey Sachs is an advocate of neoliberal envelopment practices, after all. And that's understating it. So I don't understand why this seems odd?


His thinking is much more nuanced than that, he calls for aid to work alongside the market and calls for regulation in areas, both are very un-neoliberal.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm back momentarily... Thanks for your reply, BVS:

His [Jeffrey Sachs] thinking is much more nuanced than that, he calls for aid to work alongside the market and calls for regulation in areas, both are very un-neoliberal.

I see your point. However, neoliberalism can be a catch-all and elusive term, etc. according to my understanding. It is useful but it's overuse (without clear conceptualisation) can mean that it loses meaning and clarity. I am not accusing you of that, but saying that I have a tendency to do that, as do many others. In other words, neoliberalism is itself nuanced etc. That's not to say that there aren't development practices that are tangibly neoliberal. To get to the heart of your comment: I think you are suggesting that aid and the markets are two different things, right? If I understand that correctly then I have to disagree. Aid is such a complex issue with endless misconceptions etc. Aid can in many cases be seen as the oil that keeps the engine of the markets running. Many taxpayers in Western countries believe that aid is some kind of gift given to developing countries. Much of it never leaves the donor countries. The percentage that reaches the recipient countries and then returns to the West in profits is staggering. I will have to look up the statistics on that. Anyway, I suspect you know this and more, as you are clearly well read in this area, and so I would be interested to hear more about the ways in which Sachs can be seen as more nuanced than neoliberal. I would like to add that, regardless of whatever regulations Sachs calls for, his emphasis on the market as a means of development and, if I recall correctly, his lack of emphasis on overarching structural issues (in other words, depoliticisation), is extremely neoliberal.
 
I'm back momentarily... Thanks for your reply, BVS:







I see your point. However, neoliberalism can be a catch-all and elusive term, etc. according to my understanding. It is useful but it's overuse (without clear conceptualisation) can mean that it loses meaning and clarity. I am not accusing you of that, but saying that I have a tendency to do that, as do many others. In other words, neoliberalism is itself nuanced etc. That's not to say that there aren't development practices that are tangibly neoliberal. To get to the heart of your comment: I think you are suggesting that aid and the markets are two different things, right? If I understand that correctly then I have to disagree. Aid is such a complex issue with endless misconceptions etc. Aid can in many cases be seen as the oil that keeps the engine of the markets running. Many taxpayers in Western countries believe that aid is some kind of gift given to developing countries. Much of it never leaves the donor countries. The percentage that reaches the recipient countries and then returns to the West in profits is staggering. I will have to look up the statistics on that. Anyway, I suspect you know this and more, as you are clearly well read in this area, and so I would be interested to hear more about the ways in which Sachs can be seen as more nuanced than neoliberal. I would like to add that, regardless of whatever regulations Sachs calls for, his emphasis on the market as a means of development and, if I recall correctly, his lack of emphasis on overarching structural issues (in other words, depoliticisation), is extremely neoliberal.


A strict neoliberal wouldn't believe there's any reason or room for aid.

And yes there are those that profit from aid, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I guess my question to you is; what role do you think the market plays in development, or do you believe it doesn't play any at all?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
First of all, I’m not going to reveal exactly who I work for, but let’s say I work in portfolio operations and marketing in the institutional asset management wing of one of the big 5 banks.

I can say with certainty that my bank does not fire employees for zero cause (cause, ya know, we have things called labour laws up here in Canada). I presume you may have meant to say “lays off employees” rather than “fires employees” though. Layoffs happen in absolutely every industry, yes even profitable ones. In a large corporation with many departments and divisions, the corporation overall may be making a lot of money while every department may not be. People in the unprofitable divisions may get laid off because it’s stupid for a company to pay for employees that don’t benefit the company and only cost money. Yeah, it sucks for those employees who lose their job, but if all they’re doing is costing the company money it doesn’t make any sense to keep them around just to be nice. This isn’t a problem unique to banks. Laying off unprofitable workers does not make a corporation “evil”.

Tim Horton’s (in Toronto, at least) very rarely hires locals and the vast majority of locations are staffed by TFWs, because they are paid much less. Again, this isn’t unique to any banks. You should be complaining about the TFW system that allows for this exploitation to occur. In any case, my bank uses absolutely no TFWs and there’s only one major one that I know of that does, and they were eviscerated for it in the media when the policy was announced. It was horrible PR and they lost quite a bit of business over it. Banks can make poor business decisions – this doesn’t make them “evil” either.

My dad worked for a chemical research lab for 15 years and was laid off in 2004. They did it because they could hire a grad student as an intern and pay them a fraction of the cost for a full-time researcher. Before he left, he spent two weeks training the grad student they hired. Again, nothing you’ve said is unique to banks.

And you’re insane if you think the banks deliberately engineered the financial crisis. Every bank hemorrhaged money for many quarters, additional regulations which create compliance obstacles were put into place, and many, many people lost their jobs. There is no fathomable reason why a corporation would willingly engineer a social and financial meltdown – if they wanted to cut staff or costs there were many ways to do it that wouldn’t have cost billions of dollars. It was caused by stupidity, lack of foresight and astounding recklessness but not deliberate malevolence. Nobody wanted the economy to collapse – it was an euphoric bull market before the housing crisis started, why would banks deliberately destroy a financial environment where everyone involved was making money hand over fist? It makes no sense.

I won’t sit here and say I agree with everything the bank does. I’m sure that there’s been plenty of unethical, dishonest, and simply shady shit that’s gone on over the years that I would be aghast at hearing. But again – this applies to almost every corporation on Earth that’s been around long enough. One of our clients is a steel manufacturing firm and we’re 90% sure the treasurer is stealing the employees’ pension plan for his personal use – the account has gone from over $3 million down to just over $200K about $10 to 20 thousand at a time over the past two years and this guy went from driving a Toyota and wearing shirts from the Gap to driving a Maserati and wearing Armani all the time in the same period. We really can’t do anything about it other than document everything because the guy is the legal signing authority for the account, if he says they need the money we have to give it to them unless the bank is in bankruptcy or we have some other legal obligation to restrict redemptions. It’s a steel plant, there are greedheads, assholes, thieves and frauds in every industry.

There’s nothing uniquely infernal about banks, but as Tony Montana said, people need to be able to point at someone or something and say “there. That’s the bad guy.” The bank has become a boogeyman to the general public, but I see very, very few people in the world who keep all their money in a box under the bed.

I am aware you stated that the people who work for the bank are not evil people, but if you say the bank is evil, you are also saying that the work I do to benefit the bank benefits the advancement of evil in the world. You are saying that I am directly and personally responsible for spreading evil into the world just by getting up and going to work in the morning. I’m sorry for swearing at you earlier, but that’s one of the most insulting and demeaning things I’ve ever read on this forum, full stop.

Are banks often dishonest? Sure. Frequently unethical? Undoubtedly.

Pure evil? That’s a bit of a fucking stretch, no?
 
A strict neoliberal wouldn't believe there's any reason or room for aid.

And yes there are those that profit from aid, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I guess my question to you is; what role do you think the market plays in development, or do you believe it doesn't play any at all?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Where is the neoliberal members' rulebook? Is that not like saying that a strict Christian wouldn't believe in evolution? Human beings are pragmatic and there is no simple black and white, I believe. Is Donald Trump not a strict Republican (and therefore cannot be called a Republican) when he is offending other Republican candidates? Do some strict vegetarians wear leather shoes (but never eat an animal product) while others are more strict and do neither? Who is to say that the one who is less strict is not a vegetarian? So why is it odd to link Jeffrey Sachs with neoliberalism?

It's not just about profiting from aid, but my main point is how aid is seen in terms of development alongside the market. I don't believe that seeing a need for aid (of which there can be many possible needs to agree with or disagree with) is an indication of whether or not someone is a neoliberal.

I believe that the market can play a role in development, yes. But we need to be honest about needs, motivations, and outcomes. If we pretend that the market is going to help Africa become "developed" like us, then we have to acknowledge that our societies are tremendously unequal and often lack social justice. But this is inconvenient to millionaires who move their money around internationally to avoid paying tax, who claim that there is a consensus of opinion throughout Africa and who fail to acknowledge social structures of inequality within African countries that can be perpetuated and exacerbated by the market and by economic development. No wonder Bono the political activist was sleeping when the Occupy movement was in full swing and has never commented on the bail out of the banks. If we, like Bono and Sachs, say things to the American public such as "Africans can become future consumers of the USA" or "It make sense to give aid because then there will be fewer terrorists", then we are clearly seeing (selling) development in Africa as a business opportunity while at the same time not addressing important questions with regards to terrorism. The link between capitalism and colonialism is clear. Then there is the whole debate about the development industry as a continuation of colonialism. Etc. So, yes, I believe the market can play a role – and that this can lead to positive as well as negative outcomes. But what I object to is there simplification of "markets" and "aid" and so on, in the discussion of development. I object to the depoliticisation of development issues. I object to elites speaking on behalf of others who do not have an opportunity to speak. I object to Bono's "everything is going to be alright" attitude [addition: an argument that "the market is good", when of course it can be good but, Bono, you must admit it can also be bad!] when it never has been ["alright"] and unfortunately it probably never will be. I don't object to trying to make things better, but I believe that's only really possible when we cut the crap and address all the issues and stop the simplified sales talk.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I.....

Are banks often dishonest? Sure. Frequently unethical? Undoubtedly.

Pure evil? That’s a bit of a fucking stretch, no?

Thanks for your long and interesting reply. I don't think anyone here suggested that the banks intended the crash to happen. I certainly don't believe that. But it was reckless behaviour for which banks appear to have been rewarded. This makes people angry. The injustice appears evil. The lack of expression on this by high profile political activists (who freely move their money around the world in order to pay less tax while banging on about social injustice) is maddening. Sorry for the "pure evil" emotive language. Yes, perhaps it's a stretch. Thinking of the connotations of "pure", then "pure evil" is even a contradiction in terms! I'll try to avoid hyperbole in future! Have a good weekend. Now I've REALLY got to get out of here! :wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom