Category: Capitalism

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual (human) rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Prosecute JPMorgan!!

On By southwerkIn Capitalism1 Comment

elements-of-futurism-and-cubismProsecute JPMorgan!!

I am tired of these settlements. How can business ethics be taken seriously when massive illegality produces meager fines. Yes, 4.5 billions is chicken feed compared to what was made. If getting caught is just a cost of doing business, why not commit any illegality you can afford?

Is this is how it is going to be, why don’t we just take business ethics as a course offering and throw it out the window, then replace it with a new course. We’ll call the new course, “Rule Breaking Costs.” Instead of looking at ethical systems, we’ll apply the lessons of JPMorgan to business ethics: We obey the rules only when it is profitable to do so and we break the rules when the risk is justified by a cost-benefit analysis. See, no more nasty talk about good or bad, we just use a calculator. Of course, we have to worry that someday, somehow, against all current business free market analysis, will prosecute these criminals but what are the chances of that?

My students can go to jail for failing to pay parking tickets or using marijuana. JPMorgan can ruin tens of thousands of lives through their vicious and unprincipled manipulation of the mortgage markets, and not even be prosecuted once for a criminal offense.

Is that justice?

Is that a lesson I want my business ethics students to learn?

James Pilant

JPMorgan reaches tentative $4.5 billion deal with investors | Al Jazeera America

The bad news continued to pile up for JPMorgan Chase & Co. with Friday’s announcement of a $4.5 billion settlement reached with investors who said the bank deceived them about bad mortgage investments, part of a string of recent legal deals that contributed to the nation’s largest bank rare third quarter loss this year.

The newest settlement covers 21 major institutional investors, including JPMorgan competitor Goldman Sachs, BlackRock Financial Management and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. The mortgage-backed securities were sold by JPMorgan and Bear Stearns between 2005 and 2008.

As the housing market collapsed between 2006 and 2008, millions of homeowners defaulted on high-risk mortgages. That led to billions of dollars in losses for investors who bought securities created from bundles of mortgages. Those securities were sold by JPMorgan and other big Wall Street banks.

Separately, JPMorgan has been negotiating with the U.S. Justice Department to settle a civil inquiry into its sales of mortgage-backed securities. While that case has yet to be full resolved, the bank reached a tentative deal last month to pay $13 billion.

As part of the $13 billion settlement, $4 billion will resolve U.S. government claims that JPMorgan misled mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about risky mortgage-backed securitie

via JPMorgan reaches tentative $4.5 billion deal with investors | Al Jazeera America.

From around the web.

From the web site, Living Lies (Good Site! – jp).

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/jpmorgan-to-pay-13-billion-in-mortgage-settlement-which-homes-are-affected/

The banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in settlements with Federal and State agencies and law enforcement. Where did the money go? But more importantly the real question arises out of the investigation and the question Elizabeth Warren keeps asking — which homes were found to have defective notes and mortgages as alleged by investors in their lawsuits against the investment banks? Which homes did the agency investigation find were foreclosed by parties who were strangers to the transaction. I agree with Sen. Warren who thinks that nothing could be more important to answer as required public informations hand the finding already made by investigators and admitted by the banks to be illegal Foreclosures on defective mortgage liens based on enforceable notes.

Do Businessmen Lie?

On By southwerkIn Capitalism

francis-bacon-art pictureDo Businessmen Lie?

A poll of businessmen says they are hiring more part timers to avoid buy their workers health insurance. The data points in the opposite direction of what the businessmen’s poll says. Do businessmen let their politics get in way of the facts? Well, I think that’s likely but it’s obvious that something’s wrong. Either someone is lying or they are polling the wrong businessmen.

James Pilant

When It Comes to Obamacare, Businesses Don’t Do What They Say | Beat the Press

That would have been an appropriate headline for a Christian Science Monitor article on a poll of businesses sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The poll found:

\”Some 31 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses say they have already reduced worker hours because of the law.

\”About 27 percent of franchise businesses and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees because of the law.\”

Of course this is what the businesses say they are doing. However the data say the opposite. The data say that businesses have actually reduced somewhat the share of their workforce employed for less than 30 hours a week.

This is not the only case where the businesses answering this survey seem to be contradicting the data. The survey finds:

\”Some 41 percent of the non-franchise firms say they already see health-care costs rising because of the law.\”

By contrast, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the rate of increase in employer health insurance costs has slowed in recent years.

via When It Comes to Obamacare, Businesses Don’t Do What They Say | Beat the Press.

Mark Megalli Charged

On By southwerkIn Capitalism

Mark Megalli Charged

Reading a newspaper i464SEC.gov | SEC Charges Hedge Fund Trader With Insider Trading in Carter’s Stock

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced insider trading charges against a New York-based investment professional who used nonpublic information about youth clothing company Carter’s Inc. to give the hedge fund where he worked a $3.2 million trading edge.

The SEC alleges that Mark Megalli obtained the inside information through a consulting agreement he had with the former vice president of investor relations at Carter’s, Eric Martin, who the SEC has previously charged among several others in its investigation into insider trading of Carter’s stock. Martin, who had left Carter’s and started his own consulting firm, maintained contact with at least one company insider and obtained confidential information in advance of market-moving events that he supplied to Megalli so he could trade on it. Megalli enabled hedge fund Level Global Investors L.P. to avoid approximately $2.4 million in losses and make $853,655 in illicit profits by trading shares ahead of positive or negative news.

“The information was hot enough that Megalli sometimes conducted the trades while he was still on the phone with his source,” said William Hicks, associate regional director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office. “After one profitable trade, Megalli bragged to his colleagues about being ‘max short’ in advance of negative news without mentioning his inside source.”

via SEC.gov | SEC Charges Hedge Fund Trader With Insider Trading in Carter’s Stock.

As always, I’m surprised at how little coverage these kinds of crime get. Often, I will find no stories at all on SEC charges. In this case, four news outlets covered the story, Reuters, hedgco.net, FINalternatives and OPALesque. I will be watching to see if there is coverage by more of the media but I do not have high expectations.

James Pilant

From around the web.

From the web site, Relative Money.

http://relativemoney.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/what-is-reallyi-insider-trading/

Insider trading is the trading of a public company‘s stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) by individuals with access to non-public information about the company. In various countries insider trading based on inside information is illegal. This is because it is seen as being unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information.

I think that the scope of insider trading will be extended to other activities like HFT, Politiciens, Lobbyist, Dark Pools operators and owners and also the TBTF banskters institutions which have been, are… able to socialize losses versus reaping fat profits and bonuses.

 

Lance Armstrong Not In JAIL

On By southwerkIn Capitalism

foolLance Armstrong Not In JAIL

There is an implication in the article quoted below that Armstrong could have his lifetime ban from cycling reduced. I’m sorry. I don’t understand. He cheated on a colossal and unprecedented scale. As far as I can tell he did everything to win but assassinate his opponents. He’s a serial liar and a wrongdoer. He has committed fraud and lied to every kind of media source and government agency imaginable, so why is he walking around free?

This is just a strange country.

Look at him, unembarassed, doing the talk shows, and apparently working on negotiating a return to cycling.

Lance Armstrong is a walking, talking repudiation of business ethics. He is a symbol of what’s wrong on in America – the focus on winning at all costs, a focus on the short term over the long term, a corporate flack approach to the truth as opposed to honesty, and last and most horrible, if you have enough money: you don’t pay penalties, you just walk.

What does this say to the millions of Americans involved in sports? What does it say to my college students? It says playing by the rules is for suckers. And the more that message is pounded into the population as the media still focus on this failed windbag, the more we will see outright fraud and lying institutionalized as part of this society’s beliefs.

James Pilant

James Pilant

Lance Armstrong’s promise to come clean ‘a little late’, says Usada chief | Sport | theguardian.com

Tygart, attending the World Conference on Doping in Sport, said the American had been given chances to tell his side of the story but had declined.\”We invited him to come in June 2012 at the same time as we invited other athletes guilty of doping. He was the only one of the 11 that refused our offer,\” he said.\”We attempted to meet again in December and in January and February this year and so far he\’s refused to come in and be truthful and answer all the questions under oath just like all the other athletes have done, so at this point we are going forward.\”We are hopeful that we\’ll get to the bottom of a deep culture of doping that took over the sport and give clean athletes final hope that they can compete successfully without having to use dangerous performance-enhancing drugs.\”Cycling\’s governing body said only Usada could consider any reduction of Armstrong\’s life ban from the sport.

via Lance Armstrong’s promise to come clean ‘a little late’, says Usada chief | Sport | theguardian.com.

From around the web.

From the web site, Lance Armstrong, Doping News.

http://lancearmstrongdoping.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/lance-armstrong-admits-to-doping-allegations/

The highly-decorated cyclist said he did not believe that doping program on the US Postal Service team was the biggest in the history of sport as claimed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency. He remarked the doping program couldn’t be compared to others in the past like the state-sponsored doping program in the former East Germany. Lance Armstrong denied that the world governing body of cycling covered up a positive drug test from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. He added that he didn’t use banned drugs when he returned from retirement and raced in the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France. The cyclist went on to add that it was humanly impossible to win the Tour a record seven times without doping. Armstrong said his history of testicular cancer somehow justified his favored “cocktail” of EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone.

Armstrong added that he did bullied people who did not go along with the “narrative” constructed by him. He added that some of those most hurt including his former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, may never forgive him. Armstrong denied forcing teammates to dope but said they may have felt the pressure to follow his doping practices. The cyclist remarked anti-doping officials would have never caught up with him had he not come out of retirement in 2009. The eminent cyclist of his times said he was concerned when accusations by former teammate Floyd Landis against him sparked a US federal criminal probe in 2010. He added that he would be happy to play a role in a “truth and reconciliation” period in cycling and would be the first man in the door if invited and remarked he had “no moral platform” from which to pursue a clean-up of cycling.

Football is not a Fraternity

On By southwerkIn Capitalism

Football is not a Fraternity

img5aLeonard Pitts Jr.: For adults, there’s no room for childish behavior | Opinion | McClatchy DC

Boys will be boys.Strip away the extraneous verbiage and that is what much of the defense of Richie Incognito boils down to. Incognito, a Miami Dolphins lineman, was booted from the team a few days ago – perhaps permanently – for abusive conduct, racist language and bullying behavior toward fellow lineman Jonathan Martin. Incognito\’s teammates are firmly on his side.\”I don\’t feel like any hazing or anything like that was going on,\” Mike Wallace told my colleague, Greg Cote of The Miami Herald. \”It\’s normal in football. … It\’s what football teams do, like playing with your brothers.\”\”Rite of passage,\” said another player, Cam Wake. \”You have to pay your dues to get certain privileges. … Football is the best fraternity I can think of.\”

via Leonard Pitts Jr.: For adults, there’s no room for childish behavior | Opinion | McClatchy DC.

I recommend the full column. Leonard Pitts is often quite eloquent. In this case, I agree with him totally.

What kind of business tolerates this kind of nonsense? It is obvious to the most casual of observers that this kind of behavior degrades the performance of the team and offers the opportunity for related expenses and maybe even legal fees.

We have “grown” men playing ridiculous and costly pranks on newcomers with the apparent intent of making sure the new generation carries on the wicked practices of the old.

There needs to be some new rules, some leadership replaced and a new ethos in football.

It’s a sport, not a fraternity, not a halfway house for the terminally juvenile.

James Pilant

From around the web.

From the web site, Just In Sport.

http://justinsportsnews.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/bullying-in-the-nfl/

With the recent case of bullying within the Miami Dolphins organizations has raised many questions. Starting OT for the Miami Dolphins Jonathan Martin, who was bullied by teammate and fellow offensive linemen Richie Incognito, left the team last week because of a non football illness. Apparently Incognito had been bullying Martin and Martin no longer felt comfortable with the organization.

Incognito has left a voice mail on Martin’s phone calling him a ”half n—– piece of s—” and saying “[I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face [laughter]. F— you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.” This has no place in the world, no matter what type of environment, this absolutely should not be condoned.

 

Boss Gone Wrong

On By southwerkIn Capitalism1 Comment

Boss Gone Wrong

Chris MacDonald discusses questions of duty and responsibility when your boss is out of control. It’s a good article and you should read it in its entirety.

My own view (and I don’t think it varies from MacDonald’s) is that business ethics demand that when the organization’s welfare is measured against a boss, the organization should always take priority. We have a responsibility not just to our leaders but we have broader responsibility to the organization, and of course, on a still larger scale, our nation and our civilization.

James Pilant

Chris MacDonald
Chris MacDonald

What’s Your Duty When Your Boss is Out of Control? | The Business Ethics Blog

But an employee’s level of responsibility for the boss varies with power and proximity. A senior advisor with a lot of influence has a responsibility to use it. When you’ve got the boss’s ear, you owe it to him or her to give good guidance, even what it’s advice he or she does not want to hear. But if the boss won’t listen, and if your position gives you the relevant authority, you should take action. Just what action to take will depend on what options are available to you, given your organization’s governance structure.

Most crucial of all is to remember that you owe your primary allegiance not to the boss, but to the organization. With very few exceptions, an employee’s duty is to the mission of the organization as a whole. In normal circumstances, it’s up to the boss to coordinate and motivate employees in pursuit of that mission. But when the boss strays far off mission, or wanders into utter ineffectualness, then there’s justification for deviating from the usual chain of command. Good leaders — ones who are aware of their own foibles and who are focused on the good of the organization — will make it clear to their employees in advance that that’s what they would want them to do, should the need ever arise.

via What’s Your Duty When Your Boss is Out of Control? | The Business Ethics Blog.

From around the web.

From the web site, Up North Business.

http://upnorthbusiness.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/book-review-good-boss-bad-boss/

Tommy Lasorda the baseball successful manager and executive for the Los Angeles Dodgers once said that managing people is like holding a dove in your hand. “If you hold it too tightly, you kill it, but if you hold it too loosely, you lose it.”

All of us have a good idea of what makes a good or bad boss. When it comes down to it, everyone prefers to work under a good boss, but what exactly are the characteristics of a manager that makes this happen?

This pressing question is more than answered in Good Boss, Bad Boss, a recent book authored by Robert I. Sutton, Professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University. Sutton implements psychological research along with interviews and case studies to explain the difference between exemplary managers that employees love and are truly dedicated to and those who’s bad behavior labels them as “bossholes”.

The book fortunately first focuses primarily on the habits and qualities of good bosses. Sutton explains that good bosses are keenly self-aware and avoid what is termed the “toxic tandem” of being too self-centered to realize that their employees are watching closely what their supervisor does.

 

David Yamada Talks Interns

On By southwerkIn Capitalism
David Yamada
David Yamada

David Yamada Talks Interns

Yamada posts a timeline of the key events in the unpaid intern controversy. It’s a good story. Suddenly, an industry practice of extorting labor for access and hope became controversial. Needless to say, I was pleased. Yamada has been a major player in the anti-bullying movement for years. You should pay attention to what he has to say.

James Pilant

It played at a summer near you: “The Unpaid Intern Strikes Back”

  • It started in June, when a New York federal district court ruled in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures that lead plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alex Footman, who worked as unpaid interns on the production of the movie “Black Swan,” were entitled to back pay under federal and state minimum wage laws.
  • The Glatt decision triggered a wave of mainstream national media coverage that, in turn, spurred public discussions about the intern economy and whether unpaid internships should be permitted under the law.
  • In the immediate aftermath of Glatt came a marked increase in filings of legal claims for unpaid wages by former interns.
  • ProPublica, the non-profit investigative journalism organization, created a project to examine the intern economy in America and conducted a well-publicized and successful crowd sourced fundraising campaign for a paid project intern.
  • When a senior official with the Lean In Foundation, a charitable organization launched by Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg to support the careers of women, advertised for an unpaid editorial intern in August 2013, the result was a loud public backlash. Within 48 hours, the Foundation announced that it would create a paid internship program.
  • Interns at the Nation Institute in New York, publisher of the political magazine The Nation, submitted a letter to the editor to the magazine, calling upon it to pay its full-time summer interns a living wage, rather than the $150 weekly stipend it currently paid. The Institute’s director responded by saying that it will raise the internship stipend and raise money for travel and housing grants.
  • As Intern Labor Rights continued its key role as a face-to-face and social media organizing presence in New York, the movement expanded beyond its New York base to Washington, D.C., another common site of unpaid internships. The Fair Pay Campaign went public with a call for the White House to pay its interns, citing the Oval Office’s hypocrisy in calling for a higher minimum wage while failing to pay even the current one to interns for their work.

http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/it-played-at-a-summer-near-you-the-unpaid-intern-strikes-back/

From around the web.

From the web site, Thoughts from an Unpaid Intern.

http://thoughtsfromanunpaidintern.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/when-life-gives-you-lemons-start-a-blog/

When life gives you lemons, start a blog.

As one of the many unpaid interns/waitresses that, I like to think, run this town, I leave work every day with frustrations I need to vent and a days worth of my own pent-up political commentary that no one wants to listen to…yet…I hope.

So I’m going to throw it all up here and see what happens.

Here’s my attempt to find humor in the thankless jobs of unpaid interning, waitressing and my humble thoughts on the assorted tidbits of news I come across at work and the many foreign policy-related talks that DC has to offer.

Ban the Box Picking Up Momentum?

On By southwerkIn Capitalism
CRIME Suicidal Tendencies by Yaia
CRIME Suicidal Tendencies by Yaia (Photo credit: YAIAGIFT™)

 

Ban the Box Picking Up Momentum?

 

“Ban the Box” is a movement in States and communities to have employers eliminate questions about whether or not an applicant has a criminal background. These questions keep millions of people from even being considered for employment.

 

America’s passion for imprisonment driven by the “war on drugs” has resulted in a truly incredible proportion of the population with a criminal background.

 

So, we as a nation are confronted with a policy decision, “Do we make them unemployable as former criminals with all the costs that entails or do we facilitate re-entry into society?” It’s an important decision. The productivity, the potential, of millions of Americans is huge. Equally, the loss in tax money and social disruption of creating a permanent underclass is also huge.

 

I worked in criminal justice for some years. When I’m teaching my classes, I tell my students that it’s okay to tell me if they have committed a crime but never tell their classmates. I get that people who commit crimes have to re-enter or be some kind of pariah. Most people don’t. Media stoked fear of the other is a vicious ratings builder.

 

If someone has done their time and paid their penalty, they should have a second chance. Second chances are in a real way what America is about.

 

James Pilant

 

Target Will Stop Asking People Their Criminal Histories On Job Applications | ThinkProgress

 

The big box retailer Target will stop asking prospective employees about their criminal records on job applications, the company announced over the weekend. The decision signals an important move toward helping former inmates who struggle to find work because of employment discrimination.

 

Advocacy groups for ex-offenders’ rights have pushed for years to “Ban the Box,” a phrase referring to the box on an employment application that asks about someone’s criminal past. The question, administered before a person has a chance to even land an interview, can disqualify otherwise eligible candidates off the bat.

 

But, starting at the beginning of next year, Target will wait until making a provisional job offer before inquiring about a prospective employee’s criminal record, giving candidates the chance to make their case before an employer passes judgement. The company’s decision comes just a few months after Minnesota — where Target is headquartered — approved a “Ban the Box” statute.

 

“The Box” can be one of the main barriers of re-entry for people with a criminal past. When an employer sees that box checked, it can be an automatic disqualifier. And the practice is so widespread that it can really hurt the chances for employment for ex-offenders. Surveys show that%

 

via Target Will Stop Asking People Their Criminal Histories On Job Applications | ThinkProgress.

 

From around the web!

 

From the web site, Out and Employed ( I recommend this site – quite good. jp)

 

http://outandemployed.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/ban-the-box-update/

 

As I noted in my last post, this week is devoted to checking on the status of legislation affecting  ex-offenders.

 

 

One of the more effective strategies — and one that seems to be  gaining steam —  is the  ”Ban the Box”
grassroots campaign.  The box, of course,  is that section of the
employment application that asks about whether you have a criminal
record.  The question can come in a variety of forms as  blogger James Walker notes in his very comprehensive post. Sometimes
it’s even a series of questions, as I discovered when my son recently
applied at our local grocery store for a job as a bag boy.  These are
usually yes/no questions, typically followed by a space where you’re
asked to explain any charges in further detail.

 

The problem is that once you check ”Yes,” your application often
goes no further.  One human resources professional recently told me
that in cases where someone answered yes in an online application at
his former employer, the application was automatically deleted.

 

Since 2003, some 30 cities states and counties have eliminated the box and the question from applications.

Related articles

 

 

Too Many People Are Going to Have Insurance?

On By southwerkIn Capitalism2 Comments
Fox News Channel
Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Too Many People Are Going to Have Insurance?

Are we scraping the bottom of the barrel of Anti Obamacare arguments? Is that all that’s left? Too many people are going to have insurance (and doctors may be paid less?)?

“There’s too much health insurance.” He says. Where? When?

I myself have been denied benefits in circumstances I would have not thought possible. And my friends have as good or better stories than mine.

It must be nice to live in his world and get up in the morning and be outraged by people getting “too much health insurance.”

James Pilant

Fox News’ Dr. Siegel: Too Many People Have Health Insurance Under Obamacare

On The Hannity show last night, yet another in a zillion Fox News segments designed to trash the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare”, Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel revealed that his number one concern was not how well the ACA covers his patients or even how affordable it is but that too many people will wind up with health insurance. And that inconveniences him and the “haves” he treats.Siegel said:Before they started this, we were all in trouble with insurance to begin with. There’s too much health insurance. It covers too much. Too many people have it and they can’t in my office to see me. I’m full. …I can’t see all these people.There’s a shortage of doctors. So what do they do? They’re going to pay us less.So the answer is less health care? So Dr. Siegel won’t be inconvenienced and/or get paid less? Doesn’t this violate the Hippocratic Oath?

via Fox News’ Dr. Siegel: Too Many People Have Health Insurance Under Obamacare VIDEO –.

From around the web.

From the web site, Health Care for All California.

http://healthcareforallsfv.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/even-fox-news-cant-tarnish-the-positives-involved-in-the-aca-obamacare/

The Fox News article then goes on to claim that jobs are being hurt by the ACA. By the “employer mandate” specifically. A mandate that will not even go into effect until 2015 and may be significantly changed before then. The Obama administration and others know it is a flawed portion of the law. This is widely agreed upon. Which is why it has been delayed. To claim that anyone lost a job or job hours due to a mandate that doesn’t yet exist is ludicrous. In fact, the Investor’s Business Daily “study” that claims that over 300 employers cut employees or employee hours due to the mandate is either based on hearsay OR has links that actually admit that no work hours have been cut BECAUSE the mandate has been delayed (for example, the so-called evidence provided for Biola University cutting employee hours. Which it has not. Because the mandate has been delayed).

And Fox News AGAIN inadvertently reiterates the argument that insurance should not be tied to employment.

We will be sure to reference this FoxNews.com article frequently to show why we need Single-Payer in California and beyond.

Industry Buys Its Own Facts?

On By southwerkIn Capitalism
English: The Globe House, headquarters of Brit...
English: The Globe House, headquarters of British American Tobacco in London, as seen from River Thames Deutsch: Das Globe House, die Zentrale der British American Tobacco in London, von der Themse aus gesehen (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Industry Buys Its Own Facts?

I read once that you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Apparently, an industry funded “science” group produces whatever “facts” are necessary when they’re needed.

So, let’s look at this from a business ethics standpoint. We have a public controversy in which an industry is doing something that may cause the public harm. Scientific evidence appears to suggest that some regulatory action is necessary. Business ethics would seem to dictate a rational and intelligent approach where we weigh evidence, perhaps do a cost-benefit analysis. Then we an enlightened civilized group decide what’s best for people in a democracy. That’s ethics.

But wait, certain companies have decided that when that scientific evidence appears and could cost them money, that it be branded junk science, and what’s more they have an organization that produces their very own private “facts.” Thus, we short circuit the whole system and stymie action necessary for people to live in health and peace.

Using a tissue of lies, and let’s not be tender about what this is, is unethical, a catastrophic failure of business ethics. It is the model developed by the tobacco industry to stop regulation of second hand smoke. It is designed to confuse and complicate the public debate over what should be done. It has been very successful in demonizing science and crippling democracy.

Lies kill, and these kinds of lies are particularly pernicious.

James Pilant

“Impartial” science group funded by Big Oil, soda and tobacco – Salon.com

Mother Jones has blown the lid off the American Council on Science and Health, a pro-industry research and advocacy organization known to defend everything from fracking to the potential harms of BPA from what it calls the “junk science” that’d have you think such things could pose a danger to public health. The group says all of its conclusions are driven by science, but its funding, leaked documents reveal, come from industry groups and corporations, to a greater extent than ACSH has acknowledged:

According to the ACSH documents, from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012, 58 percent of donations to the council came from corporations and large private foundations. ACSH’s donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who’s-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.

via “Impartial” science group funded by Big Oil, soda and tobacco – Salon.com.

From around the web.

From the web site, Mint Press News.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/why-is-big-tobacco-funding-climate-change-skeptics/169312/

Greenpeace recently released an update

to a March 2010 report that stressed, once again, that climate change

denial is not only funded by the fossil fuel industry, but the tobacco

industry as well.

As Mint Press News previously reported,

companies in industries such as oil and tobacco often give generous

financial donations to organizations funding research that work to

discredit peer-reviewed, scientific studies indicating that climate

change is a real phenomenon caused by humans.

The reason? If the government were to increase regulations

on environmental issues in general, tobacco companies, too, could see a

negative effect to their bank accounts, considering their products’ environmental impact – not to mention potential smoking bans that could negatively affect sales of tobacco products.

While the tobacco industry is not commonly associated with

dispelling the existence of climate change, the industry has been

funding organizations that attempt to cast doubts on the validity of

climate change studies since the early 1990s.

As the English writer and environmental and political activist George Monbiot wrote

in his book “Death Denial,” “the corporate funding of lobby groups

denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by

Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel

industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.”

Related articles