5 ms·

> part of an effort that was financed, in part, by US taxpayer dollars The "in part" here is doing a lot of work. I can't tell how big the part is from the de

by dougb5 2y ago

> part of an effort that was financed, in part, by US taxpayer dollars The "in part" here is doing a lot of work. I can't tell how big the part is from the detail provided in the article: > v-Fluence, which also had the former agrochemical firm Monsanto as a client, secured some funding from the US government as part of a contract with a third party. Public spending records show the US Agency for International Development (USAid) contracted with a separate non-governmental organization that manages a government initiative to promote GM crops in African and Asian countries. > That organization, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), then paid v-Fluence a little more than $400,000 from roughly 2013 through 2019 for services that included counteracting critics of “modern agriculture approaches” in Africa and Asia. If we count second-degree links like this, I bet we'd find that most organizations (including for-profit companies) are "funded in part by US tax dollars."

somenameforme 2y ago
The problem you run into is that this is done intentionally. For instance Hanlon's Razor, Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity., is simply completely invalid when it comes to large organizations, because they always consciously ensure some degree of plausible deniability to actions that are intentionally and maliciously done. USAID has funded a lot of awful things that the government has no business being involved in, but they do it through various sub organizations in order to effectively 'launder' the funding. Jay Byrne is the guy who founded v-Fluence. He's not only a former Monsanto director but also worked at "various high-level legislative and public affairs positions at USAID". [1] And then USAID goes on to fund his little doxing site against Monsanto critics. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/government-funded-social-network-attacking-pesticide-critics https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/government-f...
- dougb5 2y ago
  My complaint is with the article. They haven't done the reporting needed to tell me how much US taxpayers actually spent on this. They are happy to leave readers with the impression that we funded all of it. This is how we get distortions like "USAID funds Politico!" spread by bad-faith actors. The other questions they could have answered: How much did USAID spend on IFPRI? Was the grant from USAID to IFPRI expressly designated for v-Fluence, or was it for other programs as well?
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Let's say it turns out that USAID spent a lot of money on IFPRI and only a small percent of it went to fund this little site, which is indeed quite likely. Does that then imply that the other [large percent] was therefore well spent? Or even probably well spent? No, but it does prove the existence of such corruption and waste which is suggestive of more. And the problem is that a lot of this stuff is near impossible to sort out at scale. For instance the Red Cross spent $1.5 billion in donations 'rebuilding' after the Haiti earthquakes, to ultimately build a total of 6 permanent dwellings. [1] Obviously everything was not even remotely on the up and up there (and appropriately enough, USAID was also involved), yet nothing was ever proven and no consequences were ever suffered even in an extremely high profile incident like this. So the only solution here is to ensure any spending is competently scrutinized and overseen from the get go. But these numerous incidents of waste and corruption show that simply wasn't happening. [1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
    - Two4 2y ago
      I just want to point out the difference between the Red Cross and the American Red Cross, who are known grifters
    - nitwit005 2y ago
      You're having a different conversation instead of answering them.
trod1234 2y ago
> If we count second-degree links like this, I bet we'd find that most organizations ... Well as a generalization, that's just how fractional reserve systems work. The issue is when that reserve constraint is set to 0%, or replaced by systems based in fiat's objective valuation. (i.e. contrary and refuted by Carl Menger's works). There are systemic issues that need to be acted upon. For the detailed mechanics, you can find the report released in 1994 by Chicago Fed, titled Modern Money Mechanics. Its 44 pages. You can extrapolate from that, taking into account Basel 3 (bis.org) to understand the rest. The inevitable outcomes backed by history point to a currency crisis based in stochastic chaos. You won't know what individual mechanic sets it off, but once it starts there's no stopping it from burying everyone and everything. The tipping points are very indirect, with objective observation in the structures found in socialism, and its related failures leading to collapse. (ref Mises) The end of sustainable production (food) is the end of the world in ecological overshoot conditions (ref Malthus). If you can't exchange labor for needed goods, production doesn't occur. The economic cycle stalls. People starve and die. There are plenty of ostriches among humanity because its comfortable not knowing the truth. People sense this horror with no future, even if they don't recognize the mechanics that lead to it. When people struggle just to provide for themselves, its enough to notice these things. This is why so many people aren't having children. The only potential future under existing systems is slavery and the psychological torture inherent in it. What responsible parent would wish that for their children. It is rational to choose not to have children when that is the prevailing outcome. In many respects, the boomer generation is largely responsible for the aggregate environment (hellscape) we see today. They also as a cohort haven't ceded political power to younger generations, holding on to it instead into their senility and death bed. Blocking any changes from being made, and having destroyed the systems that could have righted the ship. The ultimate legacy of that generational cohort is going to be the generation that stole their children's future. It remains to be seen if we can survive as a species given all the existential risk that's been piled up all at once.

by dougb5 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

The problem you run into is that this is done intentionally. For instance Hanlon's Razor, Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity., is simply completely invalid when it comes to large organizations, because they always consciously ensure some degree of plausible deniability to actions that are intentionally and maliciously done. USAID has funded a lot of awful things that the government has no business being involved in, but they do it through various sub organizations in order to effectively 'launder' the funding. Jay Byrne is the guy who founded v-Fluence. He's not only a former Monsanto director but also worked at "various high-level legislative and public affairs positions at USAID". [1] And then USAID goes on to fund his little doxing site against Monsanto critics. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/government-funded-social-network-attacking-pesticide-critics https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/government-f...

dougb5 2y ago
My complaint is with the article. They haven't done the reporting needed to tell me how much US taxpayers actually spent on this. They are happy to leave readers with the impression that we funded all of it. This is how we get distortions like "USAID funds Politico!" spread by bad-faith actors. The other questions they could have answered: How much did USAID spend on IFPRI? Was the grant from USAID to IFPRI expressly designated for v-Fluence, or was it for other programs as well?
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Let's say it turns out that USAID spent a lot of money on IFPRI and only a small percent of it went to fund this little site, which is indeed quite likely. Does that then imply that the other [large percent] was therefore well spent? Or even probably well spent? No, but it does prove the existence of such corruption and waste which is suggestive of more. And the problem is that a lot of this stuff is near impossible to sort out at scale. For instance the Red Cross spent $1.5 billion in donations 'rebuilding' after the Haiti earthquakes, to ultimately build a total of 6 permanent dwellings. [1] Obviously everything was not even remotely on the up and up there (and appropriately enough, USAID was also involved), yet nothing was ever proven and no consequences were ever suffered even in an extremely high profile incident like this. So the only solution here is to ensure any spending is competently scrutinized and overseen from the get go. But these numerous incidents of waste and corruption show that simply wasn't happening. [1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
  - Two4 2y ago
    I just want to point out the difference between the Red Cross and the American Red Cross, who are known grifters
  - nitwit005 2y ago
    You're having a different conversation instead of answering them.

trod1234 2y ago

> If we count second-degree links like this, I bet we'd find that most organizations ... Well as a generalization, that's just how fractional reserve systems work. The issue is when that reserve constraint is set to 0%, or replaced by systems based in fiat's objective valuation. (i.e. contrary and refuted by Carl Menger's works). There are systemic issues that need to be acted upon. For the detailed mechanics, you can find the report released in 1994 by Chicago Fed, titled Modern Money Mechanics. Its 44 pages. You can extrapolate from that, taking into account Basel 3 (bis.org) to understand the rest. The inevitable outcomes backed by history point to a currency crisis based in stochastic chaos. You won't know what individual mechanic sets it off, but once it starts there's no stopping it from burying everyone and everything. The tipping points are very indirect, with objective observation in the structures found in socialism, and its related failures leading to collapse. (ref Mises) The end of sustainable production (food) is the end of the world in ecological overshoot conditions (ref Malthus). If you can't exchange labor for needed goods, production doesn't occur. The economic cycle stalls. People starve and die. There are plenty of ostriches among humanity because its comfortable not knowing the truth. People sense this horror with no future, even if they don't recognize the mechanics that lead to it. When people struggle just to provide for themselves, its enough to notice these things. This is why so many people aren't having children. The only potential future under existing systems is slavery and the psychological torture inherent in it. What responsible parent would wish that for their children. It is rational to choose not to have children when that is the prevailing outcome. In many respects, the boomer generation is largely responsible for the aggregate environment (hellscape) we see today. They also as a cohort haven't ceded political power to younger generations, holding on to it instead into their senility and death bed. Blocking any changes from being made, and having destroyed the systems that could have righted the ship. The ultimate legacy of that generational cohort is going to be the generation that stole their children's future. It remains to be seen if we can survive as a species given all the existential risk that's been piled up all at once.