BUY Intimax ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION

Good post, Marriott. One comment:

The impact of these pantents on corporations is noted; but I think it’s worth discussing the terrible impact of powerful GM seed companies like Monsanto in the developing world. Think of how tremendous a drought-resistant crop could be in sub-Saharan Africa (or the Southeast US…). Proponents of GM crops often point to developing strands of rice with higher-than-normal vitamin levels. Sounds great in countries where malnourishment is widespread, right? But many small farmers–I’ve witnessed this in South America, but I imagine it’s largely the same across the globe–are unable to afford pricey seeds that companies make them pay for each year (because part of the modifications are for the plants to not produce re-plantable seeds). I’ve even heard horror stories of farmers in southern Brazil and northern Argentina who were sued by Monsanto for “stealing” crops when seeds were blown on to their land from neighboring industrial farms.

So while I think your concern over patents consolidated in a select few companies is absolutely valid, I think it’s also important to note that even diverse patent ownership will still likely favor large industrial farms that can afford the seeds. The power dynamics of diverse patent-holdings will push the GM industry to develop better crops and seeds, but will also only increase the number of powerful companies able to pressure local farmers. It seems like we’re looking at a situation much like AIDS drugs, where philanthropic and government subsidy will become necessary to help corporations cover their development costs while ensuring that those who need the drugs/seeds get them

I might be rambling and not making sense (it’s a long week).

Good post, Marriott. One comment:

The impact of these pantents on corporations is noted; but I think it’s worth discussing the terrible impact of powerful GM seed companies like Monsanto in the developing world. Think of how tremendous a drought-resistant crop could be in sub-Saharan Africa (or the Southeast US…). Proponents of GM crops often point to developing strands of rice with higher-than-normal vitamin levels. Sounds great in countries where malnourishment is widespread, right? But many small farmers–I’ve witnessed this in South America, but I imagine it’s largely the same across the globe–are unable to afford pricey seeds that companies make them pay for each year (because part of the modifications are for the plants to not produce re-plantable seeds). I’ve even heard horror stories of farmers in southern Brazil and northern Argentina who were sued by Monsanto for “stealing” crops when seeds were blown on to their land from neighboring industrial farms.

So while I think your concern over patents consolidated in a select few companies is absolutely valid, I think it’s also important to note that even diverse patent ownership will still likely favor large industrial farms that can afford the seeds. The power dynamics of diverse patent-holdings will push the GM industry to develop better crops and seeds, but will also only increase the number of powerful companies able to pressure local farmers. It seems like we’re looking at a situation much like AIDS drugs, where philanthropic and government subsidy will become necessary to help corporations cover their development costs while ensuring that those who need the drugs/seeds get them

I might be rambling and not making sense (it’s a long week).

Good point, Taylor, and I think we all agree that patent reform in this area is only the first step. I agree with Marriott, though, that it’s a key one in beginning the reduction of prices and, in turn, increasing availability. Indeed, in order for any kind of government subsidy to be seen as legitimate, won’t it have to be available to a wide variety of competing businesses?

I’m not sure I agree that government subsidy is called for, though. I don’t know that I disagree, either, but to play devil’s advocate a little: keeping local farming alive is important and noble, but between successfully feeding large numbers of people with these new crops, and keeping local farmers in business using taxpayer money to allow them to buy the seeds for cheap, which is more important? I know it would be great to kill two birds with one stone, but isn’t there a big chance of missing that way?

Maybe philanthropic and other support is warranted, but is it the role of the government? Besides, we’re probably talking about multiple governments, right? The three companies cited were from Germany, Switzerland, and the U.S., while the governments that would want to be doing the subsidizing to support their farmers would primarily be in developing nations, right? I may be naive, but how does that work?

Good point, Taylor, and I think we all agree that patent reform in this area is only the first step. I agree with Marriott, though, that it’s a key one in beginning the reduction of prices and, in turn, increasing availability. Indeed, in order for any kind of government subsidy to be seen as legitimate, won’t it have to be available to a wide variety of competing businesses?

I’m not sure I agree that government subsidy is called for, though. I don’t know that I disagree, either, but to play devil’s advocate a little: keeping local farming alive is important and noble, but between successfully feeding large numbers of people with these new crops, and keeping local farmers in business using taxpayer money to allow them to buy the seeds for cheap, which is more important? I know it would be great to kill two birds with one stone, but isn’t there a big chance of missing that way?

Maybe philanthropic and other support is warranted, but is it the role of the government? Besides, we’re probably talking about multiple governments, right? The three companies cited were from Germany, Switzerland, and the U.S., while the governments that would want to be doing the subsidizing to support their farmers would primarily be in developing nations, right? I may be naive, but how does that work?

So put aside the government issue for a moment, and ask yourself this:

what’s better for developing economies:

1) large multinational corporations (headquartered elsewhere and paying little or no local taxes, because of their political power) growing genetically modified crops that grow faster, survive transport, and sell for cheaper than other crops. these corporations have no incentive to pay a living wage, treat workers like anything other than cogs in a machine, or create a sustainable economy

2) local farmers who are given access to the same high-quality seeds (in a fair way, without being forever beholden to a powerful corporation), who give back (both figuratively and literally) to their local economy, employ local labor (under, presumably, better conditions), and provide for their families.

This isn’t an argument about “oh wouldn’t it be nice if small farms still flourished.” It’s an issue of justice and enabling people in the developing world (who aren’t corrupt politicians bought and paid for by large foreign companies) to seize hold of their own destiny. If we give local farmers those same chances (within reason, we’re operating under basic market assumptions here), they’ll grow more than crops.

On the government point: We give billions and trillions of dollars in foreign aid each year. Much of that aid is used to purchase things for developing nations like medicines that are manufactured under patents. Purchasing seeds would work the same way.

So put aside the government issue for a moment, and ask yourself this:

what’s better for developing economies:

1) large multinational corporations (headquartered elsewhere and paying little or no local taxes, because of their political power) growing genetically modified crops that grow faster, survive transport, and sell for cheaper than other crops. these corporations have no incentive to pay a living wage, treat workers like anything other than cogs in a machine, or create a sustainable economy

2) local farmers who are given access to the same high-quality seeds (in a fair way, without being forever beholden to a powerful corporation), who give back (both figuratively and literally) to their local economy, employ local labor (under, presumably, better conditions), and provide for their families.

This isn’t an argument about “oh wouldn’t it be nice if small farms still flourished.” It’s an issue of justice and enabling people in the developing world (who aren’t corrupt politicians bought and paid for by large foreign companies) to seize hold of their own destiny. If we give local farmers those same chances (within reason, we’re operating under basic market assumptions here), they’ll grow more than crops.

On the government point: We give billions and trillions of dollars in foreign aid each year. Much of that aid is used to purchase things for developing nations like medicines that are manufactured under patents. Purchasing seeds would work the same way.

The basic debate over availability of genetically mutated seeds is the real issue here. Because the US and other nations provide competitive protection (through vast and unchallenged patents) to major corporations outside of the under-developed corners of the globe, small farmers only hope of succeeding is purchasing these seeds from the major corporations every year. That is unless we are able to eliminate patent monopoly. By instituting better patent control, the interests of corporations as well as competition to keep prices down can be realized.

The best thing for developing countries is for their small farmers to be able to afford the most technologically advanced equipment, in order to produce their crops at the lowest expense, and thus provide food to their population at the lowest price. Patents raise the prices and have the reverse effect of this desired situation.

This is a very tricky situation! The more you regulate patents the lower the profit margin for major companies to research and develop technologies, but the more affordable it is for developing countries. If you don’t regulate patents then corporations continue to develop more and more advanced products that will cost more for the consumer and thus hurt the developing countries. Obviously the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to favor the idea that less Government intereference provides for a more free market. The fact is that in this case, Government interference actually makes the market more “free” and open.

We have the same problem with pharmaceutical companies. No matter what, we have to look at this issue as a cost/benefit analysis. There is no right answer, but where in the balance do you fall? Would you rather see lower prices for less technologically advanced products or constantly pushing the envelope of technology and developing new and better products, despite the high prices to consumers? I tend to favor the latter.

One final side note: Corporate corruption in America does not hold a finger to the kind of corruption that is going on in many developing countries. Even if these seeds were provided cheaply to undeveloped countries, the price would grow exponentially on the way to the small farmer, as the importer, government, or any other handler would take their share…

The basic debate over availability of genetically mutated seeds is the real issue here. Because the US and other nations provide competitive protection (through vast and unchallenged patents) to major corporations outside of the under-developed corners of the globe, small farmers only hope of succeeding is purchasing these seeds from the major corporations every year. That is unless we are able to eliminate patent monopoly. By instituting better patent control, the interests of corporations as well as competition to keep prices down can be realized.

The best thing for developing countries is for their small farmers to be able to afford the most technologically advanced equipment, in order to produce their crops at the lowest expense, and thus provide food to their population at the lowest price. Patents raise the prices and have the reverse effect of this desired situation.

This is a very tricky situation! The more you regulate patents the lower the profit margin for major companies to research and develop technologies, but the more affordable it is for developing countries. If you don’t regulate patents then corporations continue to develop more and more advanced products that will cost more for the consumer and thus hurt the developing countries. Obviously the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to favor the idea that less Government intereference provides for a more free market. The fact is that in this case, Government interference actually makes the market more “free” and open.

We have the same problem with pharmaceutical companies. No matter what, we have to look at this issue as a cost/benefit analysis. There is no right answer, but where in the balance do you fall? Would you rather see lower prices for less technologically advanced products or constantly pushing the envelope of technology and developing new and better products, despite the high prices to consumers? I tend to favor the latter.

One final side note: Corporate corruption in America does not hold a finger to the kind of corruption that is going on in many developing countries. Even if these seeds were provided cheaply to undeveloped countries, the price would grow exponentially on the way to the small farmer, as the importer, government, or any other handler would take their share…

Looks like the World Community Grid has started a project investigating “super rice,” which sounds like it’s one of these climate ready crops being developed: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/join-the-hunt-for-super-rice/.

Looks like the World Community Grid has started a project investigating “super rice,” which sounds like it’s one of these climate ready crops being developed: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/join-the-hunt-for-super-rice/.

OK, so first of all I think it’s safe to say Marriott and I probably lean to different ends of the spectrum in terms of how much we’re willing to accept government regulation and intervention in markets. That’s all well and good, and a matter of personal ideology, but wasn’t at all my point when I said:

“It seems like we’re looking at a situation much like AIDS drugs, where philanthropic and government subsidy will become necessary to help corporations cover their development costs while ensuring that those who need the drugs/seeds get them”

I’m not talking about additional regulations imposed by the US government–or any foreign government–on patents for GM seeds or the corporations that develop them. Much to the contrary, my point was that if we are to use the markets and push for the development of “super rice” or drought-resistant corn–which could be wonderful advances for the global community, rich AND poor–we’ll need foreign aid or philanthropic dollars to fill the gap between what farmers in developing countries can pay for those seeds and what the companies need to receive in order to cover large research and development costs.

Ideally, companies engage in some philanthropic efforts themselves: as an example, many large pharmaceutical companies donate drugs to countries in need…many would argue that they don’t do it enough, but it happens. And ideally, as Marriott argues in his original post, diversity of corporate players in this market place will encourage competition and drive prices down. But, in order for (as Marriott says) “small farmers [in developing countries] to be able to afford the most technologically advanced equipment, in order to produce their crops at the lowest expense, and thus provide food to their population at the lowest price,” I believe assistance and subsidy for those small farmers will be needed. I can’t imagine a situation–given the fact that markets in the developing world, at least in the foreseeable future, will not be remotely free–where small farmers would have access to these seeeds at the price corporations need or demand. That’s where subsidy–in the form of foreign or domestic aid, OR charity–comes in.

As mentioned briefly in the WaPo article, the Gates Foundation and a variety of partners are working on this issue with their “A New Green Revolution in Africa” campaign. Info here.

Finally, on the corporate corruption point: my point was not that US corporations are inherently corrupt or any more so than those in developing countries. And you’re right to bring up the issue of corruption as aid dollars go through the pipeline with corrupt political leaders, etc. But, to me, that’s an inevitable battle in international aid that doesn’t negate the reasons for aid efforts. Nobody said these things were easy, but they’re worth the effort in order to improve lives. And my point about corporations abroad is that small farmers need an intermediary–charitable or otherwise–to protect them from corporations with huge financial and political leverage in countries without the social and legal infrastructure we have in the US.

OK, so first of all I think it’s safe to say Marriott and I probably lean to different ends of the spectrum in terms of how much we’re willing to accept government regulation and intervention in markets. That’s all well and good, and a matter of personal ideology, but wasn’t at all my point when I said:

“It seems like we’re looking at a situation much like AIDS drugs, where philanthropic and government subsidy will become necessary to help corporations cover their development costs while ensuring that those who need the drugs/seeds get them”

I’m not talking about additional regulations imposed by the US government–or any foreign government–on patents for GM seeds or the corporations that develop them. Much to the contrary, my point was that if we are to use the markets and push for the development of “super rice” or drought-resistant corn–which could be wonderful advances for the global community, rich AND poor–we’ll need foreign aid or philanthropic dollars to fill the gap between what farmers in developing countries can pay for those seeds and what the companies need to receive in order to cover large research and development costs.

Ideally, companies engage in some philanthropic efforts themselves: as an example, many large pharmaceutical companies donate drugs to countries in need…many would argue that they don’t do it enough, but it happens. And ideally, as Marriott argues in his original post, diversity of corporate players in this market place will encourage competition and drive prices down. But, in order for (as Marriott says) “small farmers [in developing countries] to be able to afford the most technologically advanced equipment, in order to produce their crops at the lowest expense, and thus provide food to their population at the lowest price,” I believe assistance and subsidy for those small farmers will be needed. I can’t imagine a situation–given the fact that markets in the developing world, at least in the foreseeable future, will not be remotely free–where small farmers would have access to these seeeds at the price corporations need or demand. That’s where subsidy–in the form of foreign or domestic aid, OR charity–comes in.

As mentioned briefly in the WaPo article, the Gates Foundation and a variety of partners are working on this issue with their “A New Green Revolution in Africa” campaign. Info here.

Finally, on the corporate corruption point: my point was not that US corporations are inherently corrupt or any more so than those in developing countries. And you’re right to bring up the issue of corruption as aid dollars go through the pipeline with corrupt political leaders, etc. But, to me, that’s an inevitable battle in international aid that doesn’t negate the reasons for aid efforts. Nobody said these things were easy, but they’re worth the effort in order to improve lives. And my point about corporations abroad is that small farmers need an intermediary–charitable or otherwise–to protect them from corporations with huge financial and political leverage in countries without the social and legal infrastructure we have in the US.