Hi everyone,
Much of the following is in direct reply to
DaveC, but I am also replying to other comments in the context of this reply where relevant.
(1)
DaveC asked,
“Care to elaborate on why Bank of America is literally evil?”
I used to live in America and I had three Bank of America accounts. I simply did not like their practices with regards to my bank accounts, which I found to be unethical. The post-2008 era reinforces my cynicism. Whether it’s Bank of America or Barclays – what is the difference. Barclays in Africa, for example. I studied with African students who did not have high opinions of Barclays. I’ll get back to these issues when discussing corporations etc.
(2) Regarding the two economists. I tried to remember the exact source I was referring to and found it. I confess that I did not remember totally correctly. Here’s the link
RTÉ Television - The Meaning of Life with Gay Byrne - then go to Page 4 and selected the interview with Bono. My mistake was that I was confusing this, which I watched over a year ago and did not remember 100% correctly, with the economists that Bono sought advice from when he first started learning about economics in the late 90s. He is actually talking about discussing policy / lobbying with the economists. HOWEVER, I had partly remembered correctly. See at 20 minutes, for the subsequent minute or so. What troubles me is he refers to “political spectrum” in terms of “left” and “right” which he then narrows down to “conservative” and “liberal”. That is NOT the complete political spectrum – apart from with regards to the very narrow USA political spectrum in terms of voting options. He also talks about a “radical centre”, but there is nothing radical about Bono’s free market “activism”.
DaveC, you asked:
“Why exactly is two economists Bono spoke to being American an intrinsically bad thing?” I did not say that exactly and I did not mean to imply that. Bono’s economics guru is Jeffrey Sachs. He is American. That is fine. But there are economists all over the world of all political persuasions. Studying international development academically, you get to read a diversity of views and arguments. But Bono’s “activism” doesn’t stray beyond Jeffrey Sach’s “The End of Poverty”. And this book is troubling as I will try to argue.
Firstly, I would like to say that getting educated on international development by economists is only part of the problem. A macro-economics perspective hides all kinds of problems that Bono, Sachs, and the UN MDGs sweep under the carpet. Bono often talks about social justice, but he doesn’t seem to be aware at all about social injustices caused by macro-economic development policy. He should also be talking to anthropologists and sociologists, seeing how macro-economic development policy affects local communities, local cultures, indigenous (endangered) languages, and further strains imbalanced power relations and social inequalities. Bono’s references to social justice without considering these things is simply naivety. And yet he was so much hegemonic power, influencing thousands of U2 fans that think he has all the answers.
DIEMEN, you sound just like Bono. Too simplistic and not confronting enough of the issues. You say,
“Compromise gets shit done” but where are the bigger compromises being made and by whom?
Regarding Jeffrey Sachs’s “The End of Poverty” – I was impressed when I first read it at time of publication. Wow, his water privatisation policies in Bolivia seemed to work so well! Then I read Naomi Klein’s responses – about what REALLY happened in Bolivia. The riots against water privatisation. Then I found myself in a classroom with some Bolivian students who totally opposed Jeffrey Sachs. This is one example. I won’t go into too much detail, but William Easterly, for example, has written a lot in argument against Sachs. There are videos online. See his book “White Man’s Burden” as a starting point. Read Dambisa Moyo – a Zambian economist educated in the UK and USA. She has been described as the “anti Bono”. Why is Bono not learning from her – an African, a woman? Why only white male American economists? Ashwani Saith refers to Sach’s book not as “The End of Poverty” but “The Idiot’s Guide to Poverty”. There is so much debate, yet Bono suggests there is consensus – that a “radical centre” is possible. This is PARTLY what I meant by being entrenched in a particular viewpoint. I will elaborate on that later.
(3) Regarding Monsanto,
DaveC, you wrote:
“Let me guess - GMOs are ‘pure evil’? News flash for you – unless you're out in the woods foraging for wild nuts and berries, nearly everything you eat has been genetically modified by humans.”
Thank you for the news flash. However, you guessed totally wrong in this case. Please try to guess accurately next time before jumping into such a patronising and antagonistic tone.
GALEONGIRL also made the same assumption about my disapproval of Monsanto – and seemed to be equally patronising while at the same time displaying total ignorance. May I suggest that YOU do some more research?
My view is encapsulated by the comments of
VLAD N U 2:
“I believe Monsanto is evil not because of GMO (which is probably safe, scientifically) but because they just try to dominate the business”. Similarly,
ELEVATED_U2_FAN knows what is going on!
“Monsanto's practice of monopolization on our food supply is what really terrifies me”.
Hi
OREGOROPA, you said you did not understand the Monsanto debate. May I recommend that you watch the documentary film “Food Inc”. Here is a trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0
What is NOT mentioned in this trailer, however (but which is covered in the full documentary), is Monsanto’s hold over the food market – and over farmers. Please, watch the film! What is interesting here is that Bono’s economics guru Jeffrey Sachs speaks a lot about intellectual property rights in “The End of Poverty”. I recall that he argues that they are detrimental to development issues and ending poverty. Yet Monsanto enforces its rule over US farmers through patented seeds. It did the same to Mexico. AND IT WILL DO THE SAME TO AFRICA. However, Sachs is possibly very hypocritical here (see below).
(4)
DaveC, you exclaimed,
“How dare an international corporation try to improve their public image with a marketing campaign? That's something only HITLER would do, guys. Pure mothaphuckkin' evil.”
This is a ridiculous comment. Absolutely childish. A PR campaign is fine as long as it does not contradict the practices of the company. Then it is hypocritical whitewash. It is simple propaganda and lies. Telling lies is not ethical just as Monsanto’s practices are arguably unethical.
(5)
BVS asked,
“do you have a legitimate link that shows a connection between Bono and Monsanto?”
Firstly, I am surprised that Bono has not spoken out against such rumours if assuming he is “innocent”. To answer your question, I don’t know. This seems to be a more recent example of this Bono–Monsanto accusation:
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs - NaturalNews.com What do you think?
I just found this book on Google Books: “Jeffrey Sachs: The Strange Case of Dr. Shock and Mr. Aid” by Japhy Wilson. I don’t know the author and I don’t know if the book is reliable or not. However, the author makes a strong connection between Jeffrey Sachs’s work at Columbia and “partnerships” with Monsanto. Since Bono has yet to disagree with anything that Sachs has argued for, and Bono has not attempted to distance himself from the Monsanto rumours, I am not very confident that these are just “rumours”. Can someone please just ask Bono what he thinks about Monsanto?
Regarding the Sachs–Monsanto accusations, what is potentially extremely hypocritical here – or, at least, something Sachs should be arguing against – is Monsanto’s strict patents / intellectual property rights etc. Sachs argued AGAINST these practices in order to reduce poverty in the so-called developing world. Is he now endorsing or “partnering” with Monsanto in total contradiction of his own arguments?
(6)
DaveC, I will try to elaborate on what I mean by “entrenched in a particular viewpoint”. Bono used to appear to be concerned with the social injustice of people who were not like him – in other parts of the world, of different political persuasions, who were oppressed, and so on. But his “activism” has come to represent the interests of elites – rich people like himself – although “in the name of” helping the poor. However, as I have argued above, his macro economic perspectives do not deal with all the issues of social injustice – in fact, they can create further social injustice and inequality. It troubles me that he doesn’t see this. Of course WE ARE ALL entrenched in particular viewpoints to some extent. This is called positionality in social sciences. But the extent to which we resist this entrenchment is the key point.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CvlQLcyawg - at 2 minutes. He says, “The (African) people are saying to us…they don’t want…” Excuse me, but when did such a consensus exist? Is there a consensus on Obamacare in the USA? Is there a consensus on austerity in the UK? And yet Bono is saying that there is some kind of consensus within AND BETWEEN African countries on development issues? Is it really so simple? The African students with whom I studied did not see it so simply. For Bono, there are no power relations or dominant voices at the level of village, nation, between African nations, across the world. But that is fantasy. For Bono, everything is black and white. He talks so easily about the solutions and what needs to be done. But actual policy, practice and critique is never so black and white. He has all the answers but he never asks all the right questions – questions that might be asked from a variety of perspectives. This is where Russell Brand as a celebrity with a conscience is far more intelligent – he is constantly questioning everything and seeing the contradictions and so on. He has more questions than answers. That is healthy.
(7)
DaveC wrote,
“as far as the tax thing goes, U2 is a corporation. I work in Finance and see dozens of major corporations move for tax purposes every single day. Why exactly is it completely unjustifiable for U2 to do it? Really, why is it such an unforgivable sin for a corporation whose primary responsibility is to increase value for its shareholders, just like every single other profit-seeking corporation on the face of the Earth, to make a move to do exactly that?”
I agree that this is business as usual, but I simply believe that it is unethical. Ireland collapsed and U2 decide to pay less tax by moving their money elsewhere. Again, compare with Russell Brand supporting the options that would make millionaires like him pay more taxes. Charlotte Church, too. It comes down not to what the rules are, or what is business as usual – but what kind of society and what kind of world we want to live in.
This brings me to:
(8) Questions of ideology.
DaveC, if a corporation has the primary responsibility is
“to increase value for its shareholders” do you really think that a company like Monsanto playing a part in development in Africa is REALLY acting in the interests of Africans? Who are the shareholders? Not Africans, but predominantly Americans, I suspect.
DaveC, you have really, although unwittingly, hit the nail on the head here! Is the market really the best means of development in Africa? I’m sure it can play a role. But not via dominating the seed market and screwing African farmers. The market may have a role, but “activists”, as Bono describes himself, should be challenging Monsanto ALL the way to the bank. There should be no simple endorsement.
Anyway, the jury is out on the Bono–Monsanto connection. Let’s see what develops.
(9) Lennon, Strummer and Marley. Well, we just don’t know, do we
DaveC. But my point is that Bono tries to ally himself with the public perceptions of certain individuals. Maybe it is just my projection, according to common perceptions of Lennon, Strummer and Marley, but I suspect they would be standing closer to Neil Young right now than Bono.
Raging in the free world: the many furies of Neil Young | Music | The Guardian You seemed to miss the point. They may be turning in their graves not because of what Bono supports (why should they care), but because of the way he allies himself with them (when they may have different viewpoints). But I guess,
DaveC, you probably also think Neil Young is also “out to lunch”.
Sorry to write so much. Thanks for your patience.