Hugh Grant -- Monsanto chair, CEO, and president -- probably won't notice the increased price of a loaf of bread. And if he does, it will be with a smile. Grant is $13-million-and-change wealthier today than he was on Monday, as he choose to exercise stock options -- 116,000 shares worth -- that netted him a profit of over $114 per share.
Like many of us, I wouldn't mind paying the extra dollar per loaf of bread if I knew the majority of that dollar was going back into the hands of farmers. Instead, the higher prices at the checkout line are funneled to the agri-giants like Monsanto and Cargill, companies making record profits. Remind you of gas prices and oil companies? Reminds me that these agri-giants spent $100 million on getting their way in the Farm Bill, an investment with huge dividends -- for Monsanto's Hugh Grant, anyway.
Cross-posted at OCM.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Jonas Posted 7:08 am
22 May 2008
In capitalism it is the consumer who can decide no longer to by cheap Monsanto bread and instead to spend more on bread made by local farmers who use their own seeds.
But apparently there's no market for this type of bread. Because apparently, most consumers are not very consequential in their behavior. At the one hand they are angry about social injustice, but when you urge them to use their power as consumers to to change things, they don't.
It's best to just skip these steps and arguments, quit negotiating with capitalists, and just admit that only marxism offers a humane alternative.
Permalink
jdcasey Posted 10:48 am
22 May 2008
Unfortunately, disproportionate access to our government (and which citizens count more than others in our representative government) compromises our power in the "free" market. If Monsanto, Cargill, and ADM can spend a billion dollars and influence the supply-demand balance, etc. then they can make the market, and our choices for where to cast our vote as consumers is artificially narrowed.
Sure, to a certain extent we should be mindful of how our dollar is spent, and what it reinforces in the market. But if all candidates on the ticket listen to these giant corporations while I'm busy earning the dollars with which to "vote", how much is my political vote worth? That vote controls - in a small way - which team the tax base cheers for...but if none of my choices makes a meaningful difference to steer government support away from industrialized agriculture, CAFOs and the rest, what's the point?
Too many people think that if we could just act as more responsible consumers, everything will be okay. Maybe, but we're fighting a pretty difficult battle when you consider that the realm of what's possible to consume is largely determined by three companies, in this case.
Permalink
maverick Posted 12:44 pm
22 May 2008
Read Vanity Fairs green issue to see where Monsanto's comes from. They have REAL skeletons in their collective closets and their own Gestapo. When they control the price of food thru GMO seeds etc etc. We are sheeple who reward criminals like Monsanto's.
Who can equate the social , environmental , let alone the CO2 footprint of this GIANT BAD SEED !!!
And can you point out the bread made with their products???
Permalink
Matthew Dillon Posted 5:42 am
23 May 2008
In the case of Monsanto, a better item than bread would have been "breakfast cereal" as Monsanto corn varieties go into cereals and other processed foods.
Monsanto doesn't have retail brands, they supply inputs - and are making a pretty penny doing so in part due to their having unfair competitive practices (market concentration/monopoly) on seeds.
Sorry that was confusing.
Permalink
inferno Posted 2:14 pm
23 May 2008
Permalink