Corporations Would Literally Kill You to Turn a Profit

Source

http://www.filmsforaction.org

jacobinmag.com

By Nicole M. Aschoff

Feb 16, 2020

Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don’t care if they kill people — as long as it’s profitable.

Boeing’s dirty laundry was aired this January when the company released over a hundred pages of emails and instant messages exchanged by employees of the aerospace company to congressional investigators. The communications offered a grim snapshot of Boeing corporate culture — high-level employees insulting the intelligence of FAA officials, discussing ways to mislead aviation regulators, lamenting their own moral turpitude.

Lawmakers professed shock at the documents, calling them “astonishing and appalling” and “incredibly damning.” House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chair Peter DeFazio said the emails “paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go in order to evade scrutiny from regulators, flight crews, and the flying public.”

In a piece for the Financial Times, Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at aviation consulting firm Leeham, blames Boeing’s apparent “cultural problem” on its merger two decades ago with defense contractor McDonnell Douglas, whose CEO Harry Stonecipher prioritized the company’s bottom line above all else. Cynthia Cole, a former engineer at Boeing, agrees. In an October 2019 interview with NPR, Cole says that following the buyout in 1997, safety and quality began “taking a second seat to schedule and cost.”

It’s a bit mystifying that there are still some who are surprised that corporations and their executives, left to their own devices, engage in unscrupulous, and sometimes deadly, behavior. Coca Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire in collisions. Tobacco companies hid the cancer-causing properties of their products for decades. The catalog of the ethical and moral crimes of corporations is impressive.

These ethical and moral failings of Boeing, Coca Cola, General Motors, and so many other companies are the norm, not the exception.

Of course, it may well be that, in the case of Boeing, a newfound obsession with increasing profits disrupted long-held corporate norms, transforming Boeing’s culture into one that would put people’s lives at risk if it meant a healthy quarterly return. Certainly, it’s easy to find examples of companies whose corporate culture changed for the worse after the board put a Jack Welch clone at the helm, or a private equity company looking for windfall gains bought out the original owners.

But we should be wary of reading too much into the “Boeing gone bad” story. Its appeal rests on a powerful fiction: that the ground state for corporations, barring infection from a malign force, is to operate according to the moral standards of the community in which they exist.

This assumption elides how the elevation of profit above all else — a defining feature of capitalism — creates a permanent misalignment between the motivations and goals of corporations and those of their stakeholders.

Indeed, we see evidence of this misalignment all around us. The desire for access to high-speed internet runs up against the unwillingness of telecom providers to invest in low-income neighborhoods or rural areas. Dirty energy companies work tenaciously to prevent communities from developing viable solar and wind alternatives. Pharmaceutical companies jack up the price of life-saving medicines.

This misalignment doesn’t just drive a wedge between corporations and their customers, however. It also sours the relationship between bosses and workers, and among workers themselves.

The Boeing case is an extreme example of a broader phenomenon. Every day we’re implicitly and explicitly asked to keep quiet in the face of accounting malfeasance, health and safety violations, harassment and abuse of coworkers, and wage theft. The effects are corrosive, destroying trust and solidarity, and strengthening the power that corporations have to pursue profits with impunity.

In the face of a steep decline in the power of organized labor and the defunding and defanging of federal regulatory agencies, options for American workers to highlight corporate abuses —without risking their job or reputation — are extremely limited. In the choice between exit and voice, most people just try to find a different job, or voice their concerns by griping to their coworkers rather than confronting their boss. This leaves rotten practices and people in place, perpetuating abuse and malfeasance.

In capitalism, the fundamental divergence between the values of corporations and the values of ordinary people is constantly papered over. But sometimes, as in the case of Boeing and the hundreds of lives lost over the past year and a half, the disconnect is impossible to ignore.

It is in these moments that we should emphasize this misalignment — shout from the rooftops that, despite the power of corporations to shape the existence of ordinary people, the values of corporations do not define us.

Love, honesty, kindness, dignity, and pride are the values that motivate most people. Instead of allowing capital to shape society according to its values, we should create institutions that force companies to operate according to our values.

Nicole M. Aschoff is on the editorial board at Jacobin. She is the author of The New Prophets of Capital and the forthcoming The Smartphone Society: Technology, Power, and Resistance in the New Gilded Age.

A Wicked Cocktail of Corporate Greed, Social Media and Opioids Is Slashing U.S. Life Expectancy Rates

Source

http://www.strategic-culture.org

Robert Bridge

Nov 30, 2019

Following decades of increased life expectancy rates, Americans have been dying earlier for three consecutive years since 2014, turning the elusive quest for the ‘American Dream’ into a real-life nightmare for many. Corporate America must accept some portion of the blame for the looming disaster.

Something is killing Americans and researchers have yet to find the culprit. But we can risk some intuitive guesses.

According to researchers from the Center on Society and Health, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, American life expectancy has not kept pace with that of other wealthy countries and is now in fact decreasing.

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that life expectancy in the United States peaked (78.9 years) in 2014 and subsequently dropped for 3 consecutive years, hitting 78.6 years in 2017. The decrease was most significant among men (0.4 years) than women (0.2 years) and happened across racial-ethnic lines: between 2014 and 2016, life expectancy decreased among non-Hispanic white populations (from 78.8 to 78.5 years), non-Hispanic black populations (from 75.3 years to 74.8 years), and Hispanic populations (82.1 to 81.8 years).

“By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups, caused by drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicides, and a diverse list of organ system diseases,” wrote researchers Steven H. Woolf and Heidi Schoomaker in a study that appears in the latest issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.

At the very beginning of the report, Woolf and Schoomaker reveal that the geographical area with the largest relative increases occurred “in the Ohio Valley and New England.”

“The implications for public health and the economy are substantial,” they added, “making it vital to understand the underlying causes.”

Incidentally, it would be difficult for any observer of the U.S. political scene to read that passage without immediately connecting it to the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Taking advantage of the deep industrial decline that has long plagued the Ohio Valley, made up of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, Trump successfully tapped into a very real social illness, at least partially connected to economic stagnation, which helped propel him into the White House.

Significantly, thirty-seven states witnessed significant jumps in midlife mortality in the years leading up to 2017. As the researchers pointed out, however, the trend was concentrated in certain states, many of which, for example in New England, did not support Trump in 2016.

“Between 2010 and 2017, the largest relative increases in mortality occurred in New England (New Hampshire, 23.3%; Maine, 20.7%; Vermont, 19.9%, Massachusetts 12.1%) and the Ohio Valley (West Virginia, 23.0%; Ohio, 21.6%; Indiana, 14.8%; Kentucky, 14.7%), as well as in New Mexico (17.5%), South Dakota (15.5%), Pennsylvania (14.4%), North Dakota (12.7%), Alaska (12.0%), and Maryland (11.0%). In contrast, the nation’s most populous states (California, Texas, and New York) experienced relatively small increases in midlife mortality.

Eight of the 10 states with the highest number of excess deaths were in the industrial Midwest or Appalachia, whereas rural US counties experienced greater increases in midlife mortality than did urban counties.

A tragic irony of the study suggests that greater access to healthcare, notably among the more affluent white population, actually correlates to an increase in higher mortality rates. The reason is connected to the out-of-control prescription of opioid drugs to combat pain and depression.

“The sharp increase in overdose deaths that began in the 1990s primarily affected white populations and came in 3 waves,” the report explained: (1) the introduction of OxyContin in 1996 and overuse of prescription opioids, followed by (2) increased heroin use, often by patients who had become addicted to prescription opioids, and (3) the subsequent emergence of potent synthetic opioids (eg, fentanyl analogues)—the latter triggering a large post-2013 increase in overdose deaths.

“That white populations first experienced a larger increase in overdose deaths than nonwhite populations may reflect their greater access to health care (and thus prescription drugs).”

In September, Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, reached a tentative settlement with 23 states and more than 2,000 cities and counties that sued the company, owned by the Sackler family, over its role in the opioid crisis

Other factors also helped to drive up the U.S. mortality rate, including alcoholic liver disease and suicides, 85% of which occurred with a firearm or other method.

The United States spends more on health care than any other country, yet its overall health report card fares worse than those of other wealthy countries. Americans experience higher rates of illness and injury and die earlier than people in other high-income nations.

Researchers were perplexed but not surprised by the data as there existed clear signs back in the 1980s that the United States was heading for a cliff as far as longevity rates go.

So what is it that’s claiming the life of Americans, many at the prime of their life, at a faster pace than in the past? The reality is that it is likely to be an accumulation of negative factors that are finally beginning to take a toll. For example, apart from the opioid crisis, there has also been an almost total collapse of union representation across Corporate America, which has essentially crushed any form of workplace democracy. This author, a former member of three worker unions, witnessed this egregious abuse of corporate power firsthand, which is apparent by the total stagnation of wages for many decades.

Today’s real average wage – that is, after accounting for inflation – has about the same purchasing power it did about half a century ago. Meanwhile, in the majority of cases, increases in salary have a marked tendency to go to the highest-paid tier of executives.

In a report by Pew Research, “real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.”

One needs only consider the growing mountain of tuition debt now consuming the paychecks of many university graduates, many of whom have yet to land their dream 6-figure job from their relatively worthless liberal education, to better understand the quiet desperation that exists across the country.

At the same time, the exponential rise in the use of social media, which has been proven to trigger depression and loneliness in users, also deserves serious consideration. What society is experiencing with its massive online presence is a total overhaul as to the way human beings relate to each other. Presently, it would be very difficult to argue that the changes have been positive; in fact, they seem to be contributing to the early demise of millions of Americans in the prime of life.

Taken together, abusive labor practices that ignores workplace democracy, the epidemic of opioid usage, compounded by the anti-social features of ‘social media’ suggests a perfect storm of factors precipitating the rise of early deaths in the United States. Since all of these areas fall in one way or another under the control of corporate power, this powerful agency must find ways to help address the problem. The future success of America depends upon it.

Canadian corporations dodged up to $11B in taxes in a year, CRA report finds

Tax agency looked at data from 2014 tax year to assess role of corporations in tax leakage

Source

 CBC News

Pete Evans

Jun 18, 2019 

The Canada Revenue Agency found tax leakage with companies big and small in the report released Tuesday.(Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Canadian companies avoided paying up to $11.4 billion worth of taxes they should have paid in the single tax year of 2014, according to the federal tax agency.

The Canada Revenue Agency released its fifth and final report on the tax gap, this one focusing on corporate taxes. Previous reports examined factors such as sales tax fraud, domestic tax evasion, and the use of offshore tax havens to look at how much leakage Canada’s taxation system has.

Tuesday’s report estimates that in the 2014 tax year, Canadian corporations managed to pay somewhere between $9.4 billion and $11.4 billion less than they should have in taxes.

Broadly speaking, bigger companies seem to be responsible for a bigger chunk of corporate tax leakage. The CRA report says small companies avoided paying between $2.7 billion and $3.5 billion in taxes. By the CRA’s definition, there were just over two million small companies in Canada that filed taxes that year.

Big companies, meanwhile, avoided paying between $6.7 billion and $7.9 billion. According to the CRA, there were about 14,000 big companies that filed some sort of income taxes in 2014.

A CRA analysis has found Canadian corporations managed to dodge paying roughly $10 billion in taxes in a single year. (Fabrizio Costantini/Bloomberg)

The tax agency is cracking down on that sort of behaviour, and says it thinks it will be able to recoup between 55 and 65 per cent of the corporate taxes it feels it is owed for 2014. That brings Canada’s corporate tax gap bill down to $3.3 billion and $5.3 billion in 2014.

The CRA says Canadian corporations earned $298 billion in taxable income that year, and paid about $40.9 billion in federal taxes. That means if their estimates about tax leakage are correct, the taxman missed out on about a quarter of the corporate tax revenue that could have been recouped.

• Loblaws squares off with CRA in $400M tax fight

“Our government is committed to cracking down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, in Canada and offshore,” said Diane Lebouthillier, Canada’s minister of national revenue.

Along with previous reports, Tuesday’s corporate tax data “will help the CRA evaluate its approaches and better target compliance actions to ensure a tax system that is fair and equitable for all Canadians,” she said.

• Wealthy Canadians hiding up to $240B abroad, CRA says

While the government is eager to recoup that money, even the tax authority admits not all of that $11-billion unpaid tax bill happened because companies were knowingly trying to defraud the system. Often, honest mistakes are to blame, including ignorance of tax law changes, accidentally overclaiming of deductions and credits, and even an inability to file taxes properly when businesses fail or go bankrupt during the year.

“Like other taxpayers, corporations may be non-compliant with their tax obligations due to both intentional and unintentional actions ranging from honest mistakes to aggressive tax avoidance,” the CRA said.

Sonia Dhaliwal, an accounting professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, said the $11-billion figure was higher than she thought it would have been, but in and of itself, it isn’t enough to make her think Canada has a rampant problem with corporate tax evasion.

• EXCLUSIVE

  BMO didn’t inflate losses or dodge tax in $1.7B loan arrangement, judge rules

Dhaliwal has previously worked with countless companies on tax issues and said that on the whole, companies big and small “try their best to be compliant.”

While corporate tax rates are comparatively lower in Canada than they are elsewhere, she said, the country actually has among the more complex tax systems in the world.

“Complexity could perhaps lead to non compliance because they’re not familiar with the rules.”

• THE FIFTH ESTATE

  CRA signs secret settlement with wealthy KPMG clients involved in offshore tax scheme

Paul Craig Roberts: “That America” is Gone

Source

http://www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

June 6, 2019

 

The story line is going out that the economic boom is weakening and the Federal Reserve has to get the printing press running again.  The Fed uses the money to purchase bonds, which drives up the prices of bonds and lowers the interest rate.  The theory is that the lower interest rate encourages consumer spending and business investment and that this increase in consumer and business spending results in more output and employment.

The Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and Bank of England have been wedded to this policy for a decade, and the Japanese for longer, without stimulating business investment.  Rather than borrowing at low interest rates in order to invest more, corporations borrowed in order to buy back their stock.  In other words, some corporations after using all their profits to buy back their own stock went into debt in order to further reduce their market capitalization!

Far from stimulating business investment, the liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve drove up stock and bond prices and spilled over into real estate.  The fact that corporations used their profits to buy back their shares rather than to invest in new capacity means that the corporations  did not experience a booming economy with good investment opportunities. It is a poor economy when the best investment for a company is to repurchase its own shares.

Consumers, devoid of real income growth, maintained their living standards by going deeper into debt.  This process was aided, for example, by stretching out car payments from three years to six and seven years, with the result that loan balances exceed the value of the vehicles.  Many households live on credit cards by paying the minimum amount, with the result that their indebtedness grows by the month. The Federal Reserve’s low interest rates are not reciprocated by the high credit card interest rate on outstanding balances.

Some European countries now have negative interest rates, which means that the bank does not pay you interest on your deposit, but charges you a fee for holding your money.  In other words, you are charged an interest rate for having money in a bank.  One reason for this is the belief of neoliberal economists that consumers would prefer to spend their money than to watch it gradually wither away and that the spending will drive the economy to higher growth.

What is the growth rate of the economy?  It is difficult to know, because the measures of inflation have been tampered with in order to avoid cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients and the payment of COLA adjustments in contracts. The consumer price index is a basket of goods that represents an average household’s expenditures.  The weights of the items in the index are estimates of the percentage of the household budget that is spent on those items.  A rise in the prices of items in the index would raise the index by the weight of those items, and this was the measure of inflation.

Changes were made that reduced the inflation that the index measured.  One change was to substitute a lower price alternative when an item in the index rose in price.  Another was to designate a rise in price of an item as a quality improvement and not count it as inflation.

Something similar was done to the producer price index which is used to deflate nominal GDP in order to measure real economic growth.  GDP is measured in terms of money, and some of the growth in the measure is due to price increases rather than to more output of goods and services.  In order to have a good estimate of how much real output has increased, it is necessary to deflate the nominal measure of GDP by taking out the price rises.  If inflation is underestimated, then real GDP will be overestimated. When John Williams of Shadowstats adjusts the real GDP measure for what he calculates is a two-percentage point understatement of annual inflation, there has been very little economic growth since 2009 when a recovery allegedly began, and the economy remains far below its pre-recession level in 2008.

In other words, the belief that the US has had a decade long economic recovery is likely to be an illusion produced by underestimating  inflation.  Indeed, every day experience with the prices of food, clothing, household goods, and services indicates a higher rate of inflation than is officially reported.

The low unemployment rate that is reported is also an illusion.  The government achieves the low rate by not counting the unemployed.  The economic and psychological cost of searching for a job are high.  There are the economic costs of a presentable appearance and transport to the interview. For a person without a pay check, these costs rapidly mount.  The psychological costs of failure to find a job time after time also mount.  People become discouraged and cease looking.  The government treats discouraged workers who cannot find jobs as no longer being in the work force and omits them from the measure of unemployment.  John Williams estimates that the real rate of US unemployment is 20%, not 3.5%

The decline in the labor force participation rate supports Williams’ conclusion.  Normally, a booming economy, which is what 3.5% unemployment represents, would have a rising labor force participation rate as people enter the work force to take advantage of the employment opportunities.  However, during the alleged ten year boom, the participation rate has fallen, an indication of poor job opportunities.

The government measures jobs in two ways: the payroll jobs report that seeks to measure the new jobs created each month (which is not a measure of employment as a person may hold two or more jobs)  and the household survey that seeks to measure employment. The results are usually at odds and cannot be reconciled. What does seem to emerge is that the new jobs reported are for the most part low productivity, low value-added, lowly paid jobs. Another conclusion is that the number of full time jobs with benefits are declining and the number of part-time jobs are rising.

A case could be made that US living standards have declined since the 1950s when one income was sufficient to support a family.  The husband took the slings and arrows of the work experience, and the wife provided household services such as home cooked nutritious meals, child care, clean clothes, and an orderly existence.  Today most households require two earners to make ends meet and then only barely.  Saving is a declining option.  A Federal Reserve report a couple of years ago concluded that about half of American households could not produce $400 cash unless personal possessions were sold.

As the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy has not served ordinary Americans or spurred investment in new plant and equipment, who has it served? The answer is corporate executives and shareholders.  As the liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve has gone mainly into the prices of financial assets, it is the owners of these assets who have benefited from the Federal Reserve’s policy.  Years ago Congress in its unwisdom capped the amount of executive pay that could be deducted as a business expense at one million dollars unless performance related.  What “performance related” means is a rise in profits and share price.  Corporate boards and executives achieved “performance” by reducing labor costs by moving jobs offshore and by using profits and borrowing in order to buy back the company’s shares, thus driving up the price.

In other words, corporate leaders and owners benefited by harming the US economy, the careers and livelihoods of the American work force, and their own companies.

This is the reason for the extraordinary worsening of the income and wealth distribution in the United States that is polarizing the US into a handful of mega-rich and a multitude of have-nots.

The America I grew up in was an opportunity society.  There were ladders of upward mobility that could be climbed on merit alone without requiring family status or social and political connections.  Instate college tuition was low.  Most families could manage it, and the students of those families that could not afford the cost worked their way through university with part time jobs. Student loans were unknown.

That America is gone.

The few economists capable of thought wonder about the high price/earnings ratios of US stocks and the 26,000 Dow Jones when stock buy-backs indicate that US corporations see no investment opportunities.  How can stock prices be so high when corporations see no growth in US consumer income that would justify investment in the US? 

When President Reagan’s supply-side economic policy got the Dow Jones up to 1,000 the US still had a real economy. How can it be that today with America’s economy hollowed out the Dow Jones is 25 or 26 times higher?  Manipulation plays a role in the answer. In Reagan’s last year in office, the George H.W. Bush forces created the Working Group on Financial Markets, otherwise known as the “plunge protection team,” the purpose of which was to prevent a stock market fall that would deny Bush the Republican nomination and the presidency as Reagan’s successor.  The Bush people did not want any replay of October 1987.

The plunge protection team brought together the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Securities and Exchange Commission in a format that could intervene in the stock market to prevent a fall. The easiest way to do this is, when faced with falling stock prices, to step in and purchase S&P futures. Hedge funds follow the leader and the market decline is arrested.

The Federal Reserve now has the ability to intervene in any financial market.  Dave Kranzler and I have shown repeatedly how the Federal Reserve or its proxies intervene in the gold market to support the value of the excessively-supplied US dollar by printing naked gold contracts to drop on the gold futures market in order to knock down the price of gold. A rising gold price would show that the dollar support arrangements that the Federal Reserve has with other central banks to maintain the illusion of a strong dollar is a contrived arrangement rejected by the gold market.

What few, if any, economists and financial market commentators understand is that today all markets are rigged by the plunge protection team.  For at least a decade it has not been possible to evaluate the financial situation by relying on traditional thinking and methods.  Rigged markets do not respond in the way that competitive markets respond.  This is the explanation why companies that see no investment opportunities for their profits better than the repurchase of their own shares can have high price/earnings ratios.  This is the explanation why the market’s effort to bring stock prices in line with realistic price/earnings ratios is unsuccessful.

As far as I can surmise, the Federal Reserve and plunge protection team can continue to rig the financial markets for the mega-rich until the US dollar loses its role as world reserve currency.

*  *  *

We live in a Matrix of Lies in which our awareness is controlled by the explanations we are given.  The control exercised over our awareness is universal.  It applies to every aspect of our existence.  In the article above I showed that not only is our understanding of the economy controlled by manipulation of our minds, but also the markets themselves are controlled by official intervention. In brief, you can believe nothing that you are officially told.  If you desire truth, you must support the websites that are committed to truth.

Bayer Discovers “Black Ops” Division Run by Monsanto, Initiates Internal Investigation as Law Enforcement Prepares Criminal Charges Against the Chemical Giant

Source

http://www.naturalnews.com

By Mike Adams

May 18, 2019

 

For over a decade, Monsanto has been engaged in building and maintaining “hit lists” of journalists, lawmakers and regulators to be taken out if they opposed the evil agenda of GMOs and toxic glyphosate weed killer chemicals that now inundate the world food supply. Any influential person who opposed the Monsanto agenda was subjected to one or more of the following:

• Attempted bribery
• Death threats and intimidation
• Character assassination through well-funded “negative P.R.” campaigns
• Defamation via coordinated Wikipedia attacks, run by Monsanto operatives
• Career destruction, such as getting scientists blacklisted from science journals
• Being doxxed, having their home addresses publicized and their families and co-workers threatened

In other words, Monsanto has been running a “black ops” division for over ten years, spending perhaps $100 million or more on efforts to silence, destroy or assassinate anyone who interfered with the agricultural giant’s market dominance.

Now, the criminal mafia activity that Monsanto has carried out for years is finally being exposed as law enforcement closes in on the crimes of this evil agricultural giant now owned by Bayer, a corporation that appears to be making an effort to “clean house” and end the Monsanto crimes that targeted journalists, lawmakers and regulators with intimidation and bribery campaigns.

Law enforcement preparing criminal charges against Monsanto division operatives

“French prosecutors said on Friday they had opened an inquiry after newspaper Le Monde filed a complaint alleging that Monsanto – acquired by Bayer for $63 billion last year – had kept a file of 200 names, including journalists and lawmakers in hopes of influencing positions on pesticides,” reports Reuters.

This “hit list” of journalists and lawmakers was directly translated into action to intimidate, threaten or bribe these individuals, just as happens in the United States. In fact, a Monsanto spokesperson now confirms the Monsanto mafia used the list to take out anyone standing in the way of the Monsanto agenda. “There have been a number of cases where – as they would say in football – not the ball was played but the man, or woman, was tackled,” admitted Matthias Berninger to Reuters. Berninger is the “head of public affairs and sustainability” of Monsanto.

Further into the statement, Berninger admits Monsanto collected “non-publicly available data about individuals” and then issued an apology from Bayer for the activity. “Following an initial review, we understand that this initiative has raised concerns and criticism,” said Bayer in a May 12th public statement. “This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior.”

What Natural News can reveal is that Monsanto hired black ops teams and private investigators to dig up the personal locations of individuals and their families, then engaged in activities to threaten and intimidate those individuals while publicly smearing them online through coordinated, well-funded character assassination campaigns.

This author believes that, over the last decade, I have been personally hunted by Monsanto-funded black ops teams who intended to destroy my credibility and physically harm my person in order to silence my public criticism of Monsanto and end the publishing of MonsantoMafia.com, GMO.news, Glyphosate.news and the dozens of other websites that Monsanto did not want to see published.

See my full video here, which explains more:B

Health Ranger: I am willing to share details with Bayer’s investigation team in exchange for a public apology and a retraction of the smears

I am willing to consider the possibility that Bayer is genuine in its attempts to clean up the “Monsanto mafia” mess that it has inherited. It is possible that the culture of Bayer is not nearly as evil and corrupt as the culture of Monsanto, which is why I am willing to sit down with Bayer’s internal investigators and privately detail the illegal tactics that have been used against myself and others who spoke out against the multiple criminal activities carried out by Monsanto’s “black ops” teams.

I will do this in exchange for a public apology from Bayer that specifically names myself, the Food Babe, Jeffrey Smith and other individuals in the independent media (there are about twenty) who have been specifically targeted, smeared and threatened by Monsanto operatives over the years. Bayer may contact my legal team for more details of what we are requesting.

This is a rare opportunity for Bayer to hear directly from the victims of the Monsanto “black ops” division that Bayer likely was not aware it was acquiring when it purchased Monsanto, since the entire division operated in secret and relied on internal corporate money laundering to obfuscate its operations.

Bayer’s attorneys may reach out to Natural News through our public contact page. Our attorneys are also initiating contact with Bayer’s legal team to initiate discussions.

Bayer says it will support criminal indictments of Monsanto operatives

If you read the Bayer announcement that went public on May 12, you’ll find that Bayer is openly supporting the criminal indictment of Monsanto operatives who ran its black ops division. “Bayer will fully support the public prosecutor’s office in France in its investigation,” says the statement.

That same statement also explains:

As an immediate measure, we have decided to suspend our cooperation with the involved external service providers for the time being. The responsible Monsanto manager left the company shortly after the acquisition.

The “external service providers” were, Natural News has learned:

• Negative P.R. firms hired to engage in online character assassination.
• Rogue private investigators tasked with geo-locating targeted individuals.
• “Wet work” intimidation / assassination teams that were directed to threaten violence and / or carry out direct violence against “enemies” of Monsanto, including the targeting of innocent family members.

Bayer goes on to explain, “We are also currently investigating further appropriate consequences both internally and with regard to external parties. Bayer stands for openness and fair dealings with all interest groups. We do not tolerate unethical behavior in our company.”

If true, this would stand in great contrast to Monsanto itself, which was run like a criminal mafia organization, complete with “hit men” and terror campaigns that focused on critics of the biotech company.

Perhaps Bayer is hoping to clean up the Monsanto nightmare and initiate a new era of operations where public debate replaces the intimidation, threats and murder campaigns run by former Monsanto operatives. As someone who has been routinely targeted, threatened and smeared by Monsanto, I am willing to entertain the possibility that Bayer is looking to right past wrongs. Even though I may never agree with the widespread use of herbicides and pharmaceuticals across society, I don’t go out of my way to criticize corporations unless they are engaged in acts of extreme evil.

McDonald’s for example, sells all sorts of garbage food products that are unhealthy for society, but McDonald’s doesn’t hire hit teams to hunt down and try to assassinate critics, for example. McDonald’s just runs ads and tries to get the public to focus on social happiness instead of the chemical pesticides found in their products. And for the most part, it works. Nobody goes to McDonald’s expecting an all-organic diet in the first place. McDonald’s is a “voluntary compromise” where a consumer is obtaining convenience and low cost in exchange for surrendering a bit of their own long-term health. But no one from McDonald’s puts a gun to their head and demands, “EAT HERE OR DIE MUTHA F##KA,” which is essentially the way Monsanto was run for over a decade.

Investigating “the project Monsanto commissioned”

Finally, I want to draw your attention to one more line in the Bayer press release. It refers to “the project Monsanto commissioned” and promises to “evaluate the allegations.”

I can report to you that this “project” is the black ops unit of Monsanto. It was commissioned by angry, evil Monsanto managers whose personal hatred and violence is only exceeded by the violence of the Monsanto corporation itself, which unleashed Agent Orange on the world, along with a long list of other deadly chemicals that were used against innocent civilians as weapons of war.

Monsanto was run by some of the most evil, criminal-minded people in the history of the world. These people, I believe, are directly responsible for acts of extreme violence — both online and offline — that specifically targeted Monsanto critics like myself. They belong behind bars, and it looks like Bayer may actually be willing to help put them there.

It’s time for Bayer to close the chapter on this Monsanto era of disinformation, destruction and death. Otherwise, the anger against Monsanto that is well deserved and widely publicized across the activist community will continue to reflect on Bayer and its share price. Monsanto has committed acts of tremendous evil against innocent, well-meaning individuals who only advocated a cleaner food supply and honest labeling. If Bayer does not open a dialogue with these activists and help resolve some of these issues, Bayer will continue to pay the price for crimes that it inherited through its acquisition of Monsanto, which has already proved disastrous from a financial point of view.

I believe the only way Bayer can resolve this is to talk to those of us who suffered through these malicious attacks and still somehow made it out alive. Bayer needs to publicly apologize, set the record straight, admit the crimes of the Monsanto black ops managers, and retract all the smear articles and Wikipedia entries it funded.

It’s time for Bayer to come clean.

 

Judge restores Obama-era drilling ban in Arctic and Atlantic

‘The president cannot just trample on the Constitution to do the bidding of his cronies,’ says lawyer

Source link

CBC.ca

The Associated Press

Mar 30, 2019

In this Feb. 15, 2018 file photo, Judith Enck, centre, former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency addresses those gathered at a protest against President Trump’s plan to expand offshore drilling for oil and gas. A U.S. judge in Alaska says Trump exceeded his authority when he reversed a ban on offshore drilling in vast parts of the Arctic Ocean and dozens of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean. (David Klepper/The Associated Press)

 

President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he reversed bans on offshore drilling in vast parts of the Arctic Ocean and dozens of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean, a U.S. judge said in a ruling that restored the Obama-era restrictions.

Judge Sharon Gleason in a decision late Friday threw out Trump’s executive order that overturned the bans that comprised a key part of Obama’s environmental legacy.

Presidents have the power under a federal law to remove certain lands from development but cannot revoke those removals, Gleason said.

“The wording of President Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicates that he intended them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress,” said Gleason, who was nominated to the bench by Obama.

A message left Saturday for the Department of Justice was not immediately returned.

The American Petroleum Institute, a defendant in the case, disagreed with the ruling.

• Trump signs order to expand drilling in Arctic, Atlantic oceans

• U.S. judge says groups can sue to keep Arctic, Atlantic drill ban

Continue:

Source link

Median CEO pay in US tops $1 million a month

Attacks on workers are paying off for the bosses at Ford, Boeing, Blue Cross Blue Shield and other giant corporations.

Source: Median CEO pay in US tops $1 million a month – World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org

By Patrick Martin
18 March 2019

The median income for 132 CEOs of major US corporations jumped to $12.4 million in 2018, more than $1 million a month, according to an analysis published Sunday by the Wall Street Journal. The CEOs, representing about one-quarter of the S&P 500 firms for which figures have thus far been released, saw pay rises of about 6.4 percent apiece compared to 2017.

The CEO gains were driven by rising stock prices for the year, despite a sharp drop in December 2018, the worst December for the financial markets since the Great Depression. Assuming the pay rises for the remaining CEOs in the S&P 500 match those of the first group, 2018 would mark the third consecutive year of record CEO pay in the United States.

Bob Iger, CEO of Disney

Among the biggest payouts were $66 million for Robert Iger, longtime CEO of Walt Disney Co., $44.7 million for Richard Handler, CEO of Jefferies Financial Group, and $42 million for Stephen MacMillan, CEO of medical equipment maker Hologic Inc. Patrick McHale of Minneapolis-based manufacturer Graco Corp. made $34.9 million in 2018.

Some CEOs outside the S&P 500 received even bigger windfalls, topped by the $125 million for Nikesh Arora, a former Google executive who became CEO of Palo Alto Networks, a cybersecurity company, only in June 2018.

Corporate criminals like the CEO of Boeing and the heads of the major banks suffered no consequences from the devastation that their actions have caused for their own workers and the population as a whole.

Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg received $23.4 million after a year that ended with the crash of a 737 Max jetliner operated by Lion Air of Indonesia, killing 189 people. Two weeks ago, a second crash of a 737 Max, this time in Ethiopia, killed 157 people and led to the worldwide grounding of all the 737 Max 8 and Max 9 jets made by the company. Boeing stock plunged 10 percent, wiping out $25 billion in stock market value.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase

Among bankers, Jamie Dimon of Citibank topped the list with $31 million, while Brian Moynihan of Bank of America received $23 million. Along with Goldman Sachs, these banks played central roles in precipitating the 2008 Wall Street crash.

Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan saw a pay rise to $16.4 million, including his first-ever bonus, despite the company’s stock plunging 24 percent due to the scandal involving the creation of millions of false accounts for customers, leading to fines and regulatory penalties.

Ford President and CEO Jim Hackett received a 10 percent raise in 2018, raking in $17.75 million, while the company continues to slash jobs both in the United States and internationally. According to press reports, the Ford CEO received 276 times the median pay for all Ford employees. General Motors has yet to report the 2018 compensation for CEO Mary Barra, who made $21.9 million in 2017.

Jim Hackett, CEO of Ford

A study reported last month in the magazine Institutional Investor found that median CEO pay at major US corporations has soared over the past four decades—from $1.8 million in the 1980s to $4.1 million in the 1990s, reaching $9.2 million in the early 2000s.

Following a drop after the 2008 Wall Street crash, when CEO compensation was driven down by falling share prices, the combined compensation from pay, stock options and bonuses for corporate bosses has returned to the level that prevailed before the financial crisis. In contrast, most workers have seen no significant recovery.

CEO pay has risen nearly 72 percent since the low point in 2009 and is now just 3.3 percent below the record levels set in 2007, on the eve of the financial collapse. According to the study reported in Institutional Investor, CEO pay grew 17.6 percent between 2016 and 2017 alone, while average pay for workers rose by only 0.3 percent.

The ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the average worker has risen from 20-1 in 1965 to 30-1 in 1978, 58-1 in 1989, 112-1 in 1995 and a record 344-1 in 2000. After the dip following the 2008 crash, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio rose back to 312-1 in 2017.

One corporate CEO’s record pay package deserves particular attention: Daniel Loepp, CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the largest insurer in the state, covering the majority of autoworkers and other industrial workers, as well as auto retirees. Loepp has seen his annual compensation rocket from $1 million in 2006, when he became CEO, to $9 million in 2015, $13.4 million in 2017 and $19.2 million in 2018, including a staggering bonus of $16.2 million.

Daniel Loepp, CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Loepp’s bonus was “only” $10.4 million in 2017, and the $5.8 million raise in his bonus was due to meeting “performance targets” set by the corporate board. These targets included slashing corporate expenses by $360 million over the past three years, through cuts in jobs and employee compensation. Loepp also pushed through a cut in the health care coverage for Blue Cross retirees, who had expected, having worked for a health care company, that their benefits would be secure.

Loepp is by far the best-paid chief executive officer of a company that is still nominally not-for-profit—but posted an “operating margin” last year of $605 million—and which, because of its longstanding relationship with the auto industry, the UAW and the AFL-CIO, has eight union executives on its board of directors.

These union officials approved the bonus and other compensation for Loepp and set the “targets” that Loepp had to meet, which were achieved by cutting the jobs and benefits of Blue Cross Blue Shield workers, many of them members of the UAW, as well as benefits for workers insured by the company, which is the principal health insurer for unionized workers across the state.

The Detroit Free Press contacted the eight union officials, including those from the UAW, Michigan Education Association, Michigan Building Trades Council, and Michigan AFL-CIO, to question them about the basis for Loepp’s whopping bonus and raise. Seven did not respond, while the Teamsters Union representative on the board of directors defended the $19.2 million payout.

William Black, executive director of Michigan Teamsters Joint Council 43, said in an email to the newspaper: “We at the board are sensitive to compensation issues, and we have emphasized that pay be tied to performance… His compensation is heavily weighted against company performance, as it should be. That performance has been very strong in recent years.”

This statement underscores the scurrilous and thoroughly corrupt role of the unions in supporting the profit system and the gouging of union members to enrich the capitalists and the corporate bosses. The union executives have far more in common with Loepp than with the workers they claim to represent. In institutions like the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, the union officials preside over multibillion-dollar corporate entities with salaries and bonuses that are modeled on those of the Loepps, Hacketts and Jamie Dimons.