One of the striking experiences about being involved in public debate in Oz is how people who have put up their head to disagree with progressivist orthodoxy have common experiences which function as something of a bond even if they disagree about everything else.
Such as awareness of the way the “racism!” abuse is used to attempt to close down debate and punish dissent. Particularly in indigenous affairs and migration matters. When I worked in Parliament house in Canberra, I knew four people who were strongly against immigration. Two had Chinese wives, one an Iranian wife, one a French wife. But opposition to immigration was (of course) a sign of “racism”. When one of the four wrote a paper that pointed out that there is, on balance, no strong economic argument for immigration, he got the treatment. Given his Chinese wife (they have since had children: he is also literate in Chinese and has a deep interest in Chinese culture), implying he was racist was hard, but folk gave it a go. All part of a whispering campaign against him: it was quite vile. And entirely typical of what happens when you put your head up in public against various progressivist orthodoxies.
And, by the way, his argument was entirely reasonable. Mass migration is against the interests of the resident working class*: a major factor in its costs and benefits “evening out” overall. But mass migration is in the interests of landowners and owners of capital (both business and intellectual), such a winning combination that opposition to migration is anathematised. (It’s racist, or at least associated with racists, and that’s all the matters, right?)
Another form of abuse to close down debate is “corporate money!”, That one works for, has worked for, has received a grant from, business “proves” your evil motives and so anything you say must be discounted. Sourcewatch is an online resource for this.
The bias involved is patent. Compare Sourcewatch on the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) with Sourcewatch on the Evatt Foundation. The Evatt Foundation gets treated on its own estimation, with no mention of funding. The IPA gets the full loaded language, with all the implications of illegitimacy.
Apparently, union funding (the Evatt Foundation) is so virtuous, it does not even have to be mentioned. Not that all corporate funding is bad: consider Sourcewatch on the Australia Institute. Clearly, corporate funding for a progressive think tank is also so virtuous, it doesn’t even have to be mentioned. So corporate funding is OK if it’s for a “good” cause.
Just part of the game of trying to de-legitimise dissent from progressivist orthodoxy.
But there are grounds to “follow the money”, just not the ones Sourcewatch is fond of. So, let’s consider three organizations significant in public debate in Oz. Two not-for-profit advocacy organizations funded by private donations—Greenpeace and the IPA—and a not-for-profit government organization mostly funded by taxes, the ABC. (Notice Sourcewatch’s attentive ideological labelling of the “conservative/right wing” ABC Board members and the lack of such labelling in the cases of Greenpeace, the Australia Institute and the Evatt Foundation—it is very important to label the evil ones, after all, so folk know what they’re dealing with: and right wing and conservative bias on the ABC, it’s such a problem. Or maybe it is having the ABC polluted by such impure and unclean folk that is the issue?)
The IPA and Greenpeace are both advocacy organizations. Which means, in both cases, they attract folk who share the values of the organization.
Which is the first mistake the “corporate money!” canard makes. People in such organizations don’t support a particular ideological line because they are paid to do so, they work for such organizations because they share its values. The job attracts the folk, they are not “empty vessels” that funding gives form to. A point no doubt obvious about people who work for Greenpeace but sneeringly reversed for those who work for bodies such as the IPA. (Because, of course, those who work for “right wing” organizations don’t have genuine moral concerns or intellectual principles.)
Bodies such as H R Nicholls Society, Samuel Griffith Society, Bennelong Society, Lavoisier Group are operated by folk who devote considerable amounts of their own time, completely unpaid, because they believe in what they do. And do so at least as much as any Progressivist Ascendancy activist. Indeed, typically probably more, since they have to put up with much more sneering abuse from folk playing status games predicated on the basis that supporting such societies is a sign of moral and intellectual delinquency.
The whole point of the “racism!”, “coporate money!” canards is to make such bodies, and paid-staff institutions such as the IPA and CIS beyond the pale. Which leads to two mutually supporting syllogisms:
Why do folk participate in such beyond-the-pale bodies?
Clearly for evil motives (racist!, corporate money! etc).
Why are such bodies beyond the pale?
Because the folk in them do them for evil motives (racist!, corporate money! etc).
At no point is there any need to consider anything they have to say (except to “prove” their moral and intellectual delinquency). And since “they mounted some good arguments” is ruled out as a possible explanation for any policy influence, one is stuck with buckets of money, perversion of debate or the ignorance and vulgarity of the masses as “explanations”.
Consider the way Sourcewatch treats Australian Environment Foundation and Independent Contractors of Australia. They are both labelled “front organizations” for the IPA, who allegedly founded them. The IPA is far too shoestring an operation to have fronts. But, in fact, both were independent foundings. Yes, there is some overlap in personnel, because they express similar values and it is how folk get to know about each other. But, of course, the notion that such folk might believe in what they do is precisely what is being ruled out by the “corporate money!” canard.
It does matter, but not in the way suggested
But, regardless of ideological bent, advocacy and fundraising do have their incentive effects. First, working within an advocacy body is likely to have reinforcing effects. That is, members are likely to reinforce each other’s views in ways that can distort perspective: the “echo chamber” effect. The more folk do not have to genuinely grapple with alternative views, the worst the effect will be. This does not de-legitimise the body, but it does give a clue on where to look for weaknesses in their output.
The sources of funding will also affect what the advocacy body concentrates on, what it emphasises. Greenpeace has an obvious incentive to play up environmental dangers and concentrate on those one that are “sexy” to the middle class Westerners who are its funding base. The IPA has an obvious incentive to concentrate on private sector solutions and play up fears about regulation, taxes and government action. Again, it does not de-legitimise either body, but it does give a clue on where to look for weaknesses in their output.
An approach that views advocacy bodies as “moral” or “corrupt” based merely on their ideology or funding is playing a status game. Even looking at how open an advocacy body’s funding arrangements are, how dispersed their funding is, only gets you so far. Ultimately, their arguments stand and fall on their own merits. But, of course, the point of the “corporate funding” canard is to define folk out the ambit of legitimate debate so one doesn’t have to bother to consider the merits of their arguments. (See previous comments about echo chambers.)
A fairly clear subtext of the “corporate money!” canard is that “tax-paid is good”. Which is simplistic nonsense. Funding something via taxes has its own selection and incentive effects.
Consider the ABC. An organization funded by taxes is probably going to have folk working in it who are in favour of the politics of funding things via taxes (consider Canberra’s federal voting patterns). In favour of the politics of “society needs fixing, and fixing by people like them”. (After all, what is the point of public broadcasting if there is not something inherently wrong with private media that only having public media will fix?)
Which is, of course, the problem with public broadcasting: over time, it is very unlikely to be representative of the opinion of the society that pays for it; as the ABC clearly is not. With all the “echo chamber” effects that has. Effect that are the more intense the larger the organization since size provides insulation. A particular problem when folk in the society are compelled to pay for said organization. So unrepresentative, and under-examined, perspectives get a massive (and coerced) institutional advantage.
If one wants an example of how noxious that can be, it is hard to go past the IMF. The specific content of the ideological bent selected for is different, but the deeper issues are the same. I am in favour of closing down the IMF as well as the ABC and the BBC for exactly the same reason: they are insular, inadequately accountable and destructive organizations that have outlived their usefulness.
The “corporate money!” canard also operates on a highly selective notion of conflict of interest. For example, having your preselection being dependent on specific unions is a far more disastrous conflict of interest than any amount of private shareholding, precisely because no real attention is paid to it. If one thinks that union (and other) preselection power was not a factor in the Cain-Kirner Government’s fiscal debacle, or in Kim Beazley’s screwing up of telecom policy (which we are still paying for), you’re dreaming.
Simply having the regulator also being a producer is a major conflict of interest: if the regulator is the major producer, then you have a compromised regulator. As the history of public education provides ample examples of. But defining “conflict of interest” in narrow “only private business generates conflict of interest” way has its own biasing effect.
Not that “racism!” and “corporate money!” are the only sticks used to deny legitimacy to dissenters. There has been something of a multiplication of thoughtcrimes. Such as “denialism” for folk who don’t accept a particular set of predictions about the future.
Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be warning, not a how-too manual.
Rarely acknowledged at the time—and almost never since—is that there were grounds to be sceptical about whether significant warming was occurring at all. For the satellite, balloon and rural ground station temperature data simply did not show warming. The debate has moved on, but it was not a ridiculous position.
But, again, we come back to the “corporate money!” canard. The suggestion that the climate debate is “of course” distorted by a (at most) a few million in corporate and foundation money but not at all by at least equivalent sums from environmental advocacy groups, or the billions of dollars in climate research grants which would dry up if humanity was deemed to be little more than spectators in the climate, is simply magical thinking. Or status thinking—bad people (denialists/sceptics) are easily bought, but good people (catastrophists) are decent, righteous folk.
Consider this LJ comment (I won’t link because it is not a personal shot) “political correctness” (a right-wing perjorative name for giving a shit about other people). Any criticism of political correctness is because you don’t care. The commenter is an honours humanities graduate of Melbourne University and has apparently taken away from an education in its Faculty of Arts a dissent-is-defined-as-malign moral casuistry whose closed-mindedness a Counter-Reformation Jesuit would be ashamed of.
The game, in all its forms, is simple intellectual thuggery which functions to de-legitimise dissent and narrow the range of debate motivated by a shared sense of moral and intellectual superiority. (Which is what is really being sold.)
The framing in terms of motive is precisely because it is a status game, but a status game which adversely affects the health of public debate.
This blog post is from http://erudito.livejournal.com/585968.html a great journal.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And here is an example of intellectual thuggery, playing the “corporate money” canard, by
Maria Taylor, a journalist engaged in PhD research at the ANU Centre for Public Awareness of Science, in an article entitled:
Old tricks still dog warming debate
published by the Canberra Times.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1020962&category=opinion
Please stop whining. The labelling, name calling and framing has been just as vigorous on the other side of the political spectrum.
The very fact that anti-environmentalists are increasingly crying out that their dissent is being crushed is a sure sign that environmentalism is mainstream, and the antis are the fringe subculture who talk up their crushed dissent as a way to increase their subversive coolness.
Paul Biggs commented in an earlier thread that everyone likes a trendy bandwagon. Actually, big bandwagon’s arent trendy. They are the plain old vanilla norm.
It is the subcultures, the goths, the grungers, the webloggers, the beatniks, the ravers, the emo’s, that are (or were) truly trendsetting and cool, who show trendier-than-thou scorn for the mainstream to a far greater degree than any mainstream contempt for them.
Subcultures are for teenagers and misfits (and old people who are filled with bitterness and failure, and are still searching for a reason to feel successful and good about themselves. Is there anything sadder than a middle aged person trying to be hip?)
The fact that AGW skepticism is trying to frame itself as a repressed subculture, full of crushed dissent and righteous indignation for the nasty, stifling mainstream, is a sign that AGW skepticism is failing, and is falling to be on par with other adolescent fads, cliques and movements of alternative cooooool. Just another subculture for the mature among us to lovingly fret and worry over.
Oh no, sourcewatch is crushing the dissent of the IPA! Sounds like dad gave his teenager a talking to because s/he came home with an eyebrow piercing, and s/he is now locked up in the bedroom, lamenting the oppression of the world, listening to Bob Carter and the Rockers blaring from the stereo.
awwwwwwwwwwwww, poor skeptics! The Man says you’re grounded!
“Bodies such as H R Nicholls Society, Samuel Griffith Society, Bennelong Society, Lavoisier Group are operated by folk who devote considerable amounts of their own time, completely unpaid, because they believe in what they do.”
HAHAHA, I’m picturing the record store in the movie “High Fidelity” as I read this!
Jen – pretty unconvincing:
From the AEF charter:
“Our members value:
Evidence – policies are set and decisions are made on the basis of facts, evidence and scientific analysis.
Choice – issues are prioritized on the basis of accurate risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
Technology – appropriate and innovative technological solutions are implemented.
Management – active management is used when necessary, acknowledging that landscapes and ecosystems are dynamic.
Diversity – biological diversity is maintained.
People – the needs and aspirations of people should receive due consideration.
If you want to be a part of a new national movement that places a premium on science and evidence, that values honest debate and discussion, and that is rethinking what it means to be an environmentalist, then consider joining the AEF today.” {ENDS}
So honest debate, discussion, science evidence, choice, people ????
Now have a look at your AEF programme.
Professor Bob Carter, Marine geologist and environmental scientist – Real Facts and Figures about Global Warming. An analysis of the facts of climate change in balanced context WOW !!
Gee I think we know by now what Bob will say ! That fact that he disagrees with the mainstream international IPCC science position creates no issue?? Ability to progress the issue – not much. Simply stick in 100% denial.
Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Chairman Aust Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation – People’s future energy needs and the environment.
Do we get a choice of an Australia based massively on solar. Is it practical? What about a mix.
Anti-forestry or anti-GM representation zilch. Too hot to handle?
Do I see any attempt to debate the differences, arrive at a new position, investigate the opposing sides points of view, negotiate a compromise, investigate multiple criteria and multiple objectives, advocate sensible change.
So I can’t see it’s about debate – it’s simply about holding the line. Defending the position at all costs. Opportunity for change is minimal.
So you might convince yourselves but that’s about it.
So a society of interested individuals with like minds. But that’s OK – it’s a free country.
Luke just demonstrated the inherent bias, not a dicky bird about Sourcewatch, Evatt Foundation..
Sourcewatch say that they do not accept accept corporate, labor union or government grants but they do accept money from foundations, funds, trusts etc.
Is there any proof that being funded by bodies such as Rockefeller Associates and the Rockefeller Family Foundation makes them less biased?
No I didn’t – I’m happy to read something that was commissioned and take it on its merits. I was responding to Jen’s comment/lament. Rog I think you know when it starts to sound like a political campaign instead of a science report. And if you want to form a society of like minded individuals to hold the line against the envionmental movement on certain issues – that’s absolutely fine – free country – but don’t pretend it’s inclusive when it’s not.
Steve and Luke, Exhibits “A” and “B”. Their heads so far up the old rectum that they gag with every sphincter contraction.
The entire population of Spivanthropus climatensis spend the best part of two years trying to claim that the debate is over and that deniers are a fringe group at the margins and now they try to tell us that it was all just a right wing trick to portray ourselves as maligned victims of mainstream hedgemony?
You guys are joke. Next you’ll claim that the tropics comprises all the area between 89N and 89S. Judge a mind in the same way one judges an artisan, by the precision of his tools. You guys have only just mastered the rock.
“to portray OURSELVES as maligned victims of mainstream hedgemony”
Yes “hedging money” is certainly what it is all about 🙂
Whereas the hegemony of the rural aristocracy holds the nation to ransom.
OURSELVES !! – us/them – inclusive ? – thanks for supporting the case Ian. Exactly my point. Thanks for playing.
P.S. I’m bending over backwards but can’t quite get the head in yet.
How is your “lets make a regional State” movement coming along Ian? Do you have a secret handshake yet? Or tattoos? Or a clubhouse? Do you have a myspace web page?
Wurd to you and your sapling rippin homies.
Steve,
It’s not the unbelievers who’ve been shouting for years that the debate is over – or screaming about 1 film ( albeit flawed ) shown on the public broadcaster that questions AGW.
Why do you think that challenging the mainstream is such a bad thing?
I accept the majority expert opinion on AGW but still believe scepticism is healthy and not to be feared – can’t work out therefore if I’m a goth, grunger, weblogger, beatnik, raver, emo ( don’t even know what that is )or just a teenager , misfit or old person ( is early 40’s old these days ??) filled with bitterness and failure, still searching for a reason to feel successful and good about myself.
The original point about corporate funding is a good one – is there any evidence that of all modern institutions ; Government , Unions , Churches , NGO’s , Universities etc private corporations are particularly malevolent or filled with evil doers?
I’ve only ever worked in the private sector – apart from one summer Uni break temping for then Department of Social Security – and most of the people I’ve come across are no worse or more extreme than anyone else.
It is a selectively applied bias though – Caterpillar and global insurers got a good run here recently from the true believers.
At the end of the day I’m sure it’s just a convenient excuse for not dealing with the arguments.
Luke – with you , though it cuts both ways ; I’m sure there are plenty of Greenpeace members you’d run a mile from.
I’m a financial member of the Australia Institute, the IPA and Amnesty International – they don’t appear to tailor their views to suit me.
Luke talks like he is a paid up member of the media;
“we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.”
http://tinyurl.com/24z53q
Jim: it’s no too late to come in out of the cold.
What a load of baloney – how can you have an “environment” foundation with a selected diet of views? Unless of course it’s simply a “society”. Is the aim to work the science logically through to a Foundation position and to affect some change in the wider community/policy? or simply to hold “a line”. Looks like holding a line with a pre-determined agenda to me. And if that’s what you want to do that’s fine. Just don’t dress the situation up with lofty goals and rhetoric to more than that.
And Mottsa has now declared it’s “Ourselves” – sounds pretty exclusive club.
Corporate power, especially in duolopy and oligopoly markets, is inherently good. The profit motive of the ruling minority is overrun with goodwill for mankind. I know many such privileged people and they occasionally holiday in exotic locations where they chance amusing encounters with culturally fascinating little people.
MNC’s are the ultimate expression of representative democracy, spreadig opportunity worldwide as they extract operational concessions (tax, pollution, labour standards etc) from countries desperate for a sniff of foriegn currencies, and with GDP less than a MNC’s revenue they have no chance of preventing the repatriation of profits to better havens with higher returns.
It’s a lie that corporations have centralised, dictatorial internal modes of control, or allow a ruling minority to harbour the riches similar to failed communist experiments. Corporatised power and rights without responsibilities is such a successful model that it’s now transitioning to a new form: private equity deals. No chance to argue markets create democracy there as progressivley centralised market control has spawned an altogether different beast.
Under the mantle of “countering propaganda” John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton put their own “spin” onto events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stauber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Rampton
Lorenzo takes great pains to elucidate what I’ve been saying for a while: when debating, the first thing the whacktivists do is change the subject.
They don’t actually care about science and data, they have another agenda. You talk to them about science and data, and it turns out, they’re always interested in something else.
Good luck Lorenzo, they’re actually quite deaf.
” Corporations employ directly a million Australians and, indirectly, probably three times that, when their dealings with suppliers and small businesses are taken into account.
The sheer scale of taxes paid by corporations is fundamental to every Australian’s well-being. The corporate tax take is the second biggest revenue stream to the Commonwealth, and the fastest growing. In the financial year 2001-02, the corporate tax take amounted to $27 billion.
The modern corporation is intrinsically linked to the prosperity and well-being of Australian society”
Hugh Morgan – The Age
Don’t forget to say ” thank-you” to Hugh and his fellow barbarians next time you’re in a public hospital PP.
Jim
AIT is flawed, TGGWS is lies from the basic premise. I note TGGWS was ready to proclaim that the science of global warming is all about being aboard a billion dollar gravy train.
Jim,
Of course it is silly to cry “corporate funding!” as a way to win the argument. The point of my mocking is that
Its hardly mainstream for the forefront of environmental thought to be carried on such immature debating tactics. You might notice it in these backwater blog discussions, but such discussions are so far removed from where the action.
Perhaps the use of the corporate greed smear is popular in green groups, but being an employee of a green group is and always has been a fairly fringe pursuit.
The point is that pro-AGW thought is thriving in board rooms and the highest levels of government all around the world. That is where the action is happening, and these people don’t think that corporations are bad. Picking a fight with the green fridge is not clever or relevant. Its dull.
This Lorezo character’s piece of writing sounds clever enough if you isolate it from the rest of debate, but when you put it in the context of the wider discussion that has been going on for two decades, it is hardly clever or profound.
It is very amusing that after literally decades of painting environmentalists with all sorts of simple smears, from tree huggers, to long haired flower children, to mass murderers for banning DDT (rachel carson is hitler!) to climate scientists are making it up in their chase for research dollars, to greenies are like watermelons (green outside, red inside) etc etc etc, the fact that there is now a growing chorus from the anti-AGW side that they are being dismissed with framing, and their dissent is being crushed, is absolutely hilarious.
And as I said, it is a very clear marker of the parlous state that anti-AGW sentiment finds itself.
Middle aged conservative adults chide and quietly laugh at passionate, angsty teenagers and university students who rile against the establishment.
I’m applying the same attitude to the passionate, angsty, conspiracy rich rhetoric that is starting to become popular amongst skeptics, now replete with ‘don’t repress my dissent!’ chest beating, and overquoting of George Orwell, which is always popular amongst intellectual lightweights looking to beef their cred.
Concern for the environment is mainstream, and thus not trendy. Your parents are concerned about the environment these days. Its funny that it is now the anti-AGW crowd who are full of conspiracy theories, angst, whining at being called names, and a preference for riling against the system.
Don’t like the mainstream peer-reviewed science? Then peer-review must be flawed and corrupt!
Don’t like mainstream environmental thinking? Start your own alternate coool environmental group!
Don’t feel that contemporary society has a place for you? That’s easy! Chop down a tree per day to show them who is boss! Rip out saplings! That’ll show The Man! Grafitti your message on trains why dontcha!
Mature stuff.
Australian environmental politics has changed a lot in the past decade, particularly the past year.
And this is what I’m taking about: given the entry into mainstream of pro-AGW thinking, it is pointless to pick fights with the feral, anti-corporate end of the green movement. If you think about it, you’ll realise that nobody in the Australian Government gives a flying proverbial what *any* environmental group thinks about global warming. The political lobbying might of Greenpeace, ACF, WWF etc with the Howard Govt is pretty close to zero.
And yet JWH is doing emissions trading. If you want to know who it is that is twisting JWHs arm to do this, don’t look to the green groups. He doesn’t care about them. Just go out in the street. That’s who it is. Its the Australian public.
Its the CEOs of energy companies who don’t have enough certainty to invest in new generation that want some action.
Its the CEOs of insurance companies.
Its the CEOs of property companies.
Its the Business Council of Australia.
Its even some oil and coal companies for heavens sake.
Alan Hunter,
I learned a great deal from your comments, especially the following:
“JOKE”
“Blah Blah Blah”
“rabid”
“right ring propaganda”
Doubtless many are going back to correct these problems in their data-sets and models.
People who whine about “racism” and “corporate money” have no problems with “reverse discrimination” that they call affirmative action and have no problems with government grants and social programs funded by “corporate money taken through taxation.”
Hunter’s post was a good example of a plodding intellect that is unable to make finer distinctions. He turned our healthy and legitimately sceptical inquiries in respect of weather station paintwork into an implied proof that we were claiming zero impact of man on temperatures.
These are the classic extrapolations from limited data to extreme conclusions that are the hallmark of the bimboscenti. One can just barely trace how these minds work, with stuff like (numeral 7 + cream bun) x (undergraduate sneer / page three tits) = ignorant certitude).
Awesome stuff, and we are expected to argue logically with that sort of crap?
And to top it all off, Luke comes out with “the hegemony of the rural aristocracy holds the nation to ransom”. Just get a load of this clown’s baggage as he hurtles headlong into the 1970’s. So how HAVE things been on the planet Gonzon, Luke old boy?
Ian doing his grandad at the pub impersonation.
My violin gently weeps for poor Lorenzo.
Nobody listens to you Munn, you are a fiddler.
The whole elaborate and monstrous AGW edifice is built on the foundation of a continued steady rise of the Earth’s temperature.
What if the trend slows, levels off or even falls?
No amount of fudging or fraud can conceal that indefinitely.
What then?
I’m not Steve Munn Rog.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/7/prweb539513.htm
Going Green is Red Hot
Climate change. Energy efficiency. Green design. Sustainable development. The latest red-hot trend is Going Green. Major companies and organizations are turning to strategic advisory firm Y&M Partners of Beverly Hills for market segment expertise on pursuing green initiatives.
Beverly Hills, CA (PRWEB) July 17, 2007 — Going Green is a trend that has burst on the scene with a new fervor – perhaps spurred by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, but also by a renewed sense of urgency as terms like “carbon footprint” and “carbon offset projects” begin to dominate our discourse.
From multinational corporations and academic institutions to market segments and individuals, globe-oriented people across the U.S. are turning to companies like Y&M Partners of Beverly Hills for business consulting on their “green” initiatives. “Companies see gold in the green and want expert thinking and advice before jumping in. And the data supporting this new business push is eye-popping”, says Beverly Macy, managing partner of Y&M Partners.
[cut]
###