–If you want to know why the world is so screwed up, look to the IMF

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The IMF proclaims on its web site: “The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 187 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.

For an organization with the word “monetary” in its title, it knows nothing about Monetary Sovereignty, and for that reason, it has accomplished none of what it claims. It lends money to troubled debtors (thereby increasing their debt). At the same time, scolds debtors to reduce their debt (i.e. to reduce their money supply), as a way to grow their economies. It’s beyond ignorance. It’s a big reason the world is so screwed up.

They are the classic leech doctors, who bleed patients to cure anemia. Here’s what they say.

FINANCE & DEVELOPMENT, September 2011, Vol. 48, No. 3
By Jiri Jonas and Cemile Sancak

PUBLIC debt has grown rapidly in many advanced economies as a result of the recent severe global downturn. Now those countries will have to undertake unprecedented expenditure and tax (that is, fiscal) adjustments to ensure debt sustainability.

Note to IMF: Monetarily Sovereign nations are different from monetarily non-sovereign nations. The former do not pay debts with tax money. The later do. In a Monetarily Sovereign nation, a government surplus is a private sector deficit.

Earlier attempts at fiscal adjustment provide important lessons to guide policymakers in this effort. We look at efforts undertaken more than a decade ago in Canada and the United States that provide lessons for today’s issues.

Both nations faced growing fiscal deficits and public debt in the 1980s, and the initial attempts to correct them proved insufficient. As deficits and debt mounted in the first half of the 1990s, both countries introduced adjustment plans to restore debt sustainability.

Think about what “debt sustainability” means. Does it mean Canada and the U.S. will not be able to pay their bills? That never has happened, so clearly the debts have been “sustainable.” But IMF never says what “debt sustainability” means. It’s just one of those magic phrases, having no substance, while sounding prudent and knowledgeable.

In Canada . . . the ultimate goal was a balanced budget.

Balanced budget = no money supply growth. Why would any country want to end the growth of its money supply, especially with a growing population (fewer dollars per person), inflation (making each dollar worth less) and the needs of a growing economy?

Here is how Gross Domestic Product is calculated:

Federal Spending
+ Private Investment
+ Private Consumption

+ Net exports
GDP

Three of the four factors comprising GDP require an increased money supply. But IMF wants to cut the money supply. So from where with growth come?

Both countries perceived growing public debt as a threat to economic prosperity, though for somewhat different reasons. The Canadian government stressed the negative implications of high interest payments on growth . . .

Logically, this makes no sense, as increased federal interest payments are identical with every other economic stimulus the government uses. They add dollars to the economy. The U.S. experience is that, contrary to popular wisdom, higher interest rates are, in fact, stimulative.

. . . the importance of intergenerational equity (that future citizens should not pay the bills of living citizens) . . .

In Monetarily Sovereign nations, like Canada and the U.S., taxes do not pay for federal spending. If taxes fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, neither event would affect by even $1, the government’s ability to spend. There is no relationship between federal taxes and federal spending.

. . . and the need to maintain the ability to spend on valued public programs such as health care and old age security, without jeopardizing long-run fiscal stability.

Another phrase I love: “fiscal stability.” What is ‘stable” about reduced fedefral spending or increased federal taxes? No on knows, least of which the IMF.

A Monetarily Sovereign government pays bills by instructing creditors’ banks to mark up the creditors’ checking accounts. These instructions are not constrained by, or related to, tax collections.

The U.S. government emphasized the adverse effect of high interest rates on private investment and, through that channel, on economic growth.

History shows no such adverse effects.

In both countries, deficit reduction turned out to be greater than expected. In the United States, the actual deficit was close to zero in 1997, and the budget balance moved to a surplus that exceeded 2 percent of GDP by 2000.

Which led to the recession of 2001. No surprise, though. Every depression in U.S. history has been preceded by a series of surpluses, and nearly all recessions have been preceded by a series of reduced deficit growth.

In Canada, the overall balance moved to surplus during 1997–98.

Which led to the Canadian recession of 1999. After that, Canada’s oil exports rose dramatically, replacing the dollars lost to government surpluses. A government surplus is a private sector deficit.

canada oil exports
CIA World Factbook

The U.S. fiscal position deteriorated and the deficit exceeded 3 percent of GDP by 2003.

The years 2002-2007 saw solid GDP growth in the U.S. For the IMF, a successful position is low, or no, money growth, regardless of economic growth — or lack thereof.

In contrast, Canada’s overall balance remained in surplus until the global financial crisis in 2008, and Canada’s net debt-to-GDP ratio is now the lowest among the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

They lump monetarily non-sovereign nations, which do have debt sustainability problems, with Monetarily Sovereign nations, that can service any size debt.

In hindsight, it is clear that the fiscal improvement experienced by the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s had a less solid foundation, because it was in part driven by temporary factors related to the stock market boom and realized capital gains, as well as by strong economic activity boosted by rapid credit expansion.

And what supported the stock market boom, realized capital gains and rapid credit expansion? The increased money supply. The IMF confuses effect with cause.

In the early 2000s, policymakers debated over what to do with fiscal surpluses. . .

A Monetarily Sovereign government doesn’t do anything “with” surpluses. Unlike you, me, the states, counties and cities, and the euro nations, the U.S. does not save dollars. Why should it? I creates dollars, ad hoc, by paying bills.

Readers of this blog have seen how I have, at various times, awarded dunce cap symbols, clown symbols and traitor symbols to deserving “experts.”. As I am sovereign in these symbols, I maintain no supply. I award them ad hoc. That is how our federal government operates with its sovereign currency.

The IMF simply cannot comprehend Monetary Sovereignty vs. monetary non-sovereignty. If they were doctors, they would prescribe vasectomies for women, and tubal ligation for men.

The main lesson is that fiscal adjustment based on structural reforms is more likely to be sustainable compared with improvements based on temporary factors. Given the size of fiscal imbalances and future fiscal pressures related to population aging, many advanced economies will have to maintain fiscal discipline for several years, if not decades.

Thereby assuring ever deeper and longer recessions and depressions. For the IMF “doctors,” the measure of success is not the patient’s economic health, but rather how much medicine the patient takes.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

19 thoughts on “–If you want to know why the world is so screwed up, look to the IMF

    1. He said, ” . . . the added value conveyed by every additional – borrowed – dollar has at the very least threatened to become negative.”

      He doesn’t understand that a Monetarily Sovereign nation doesn’t need to borrow, and when it does borrow, it easily could pay off all its loans in one day. Actually, he doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty. Period.

      He also said, ” . . . we may have already reached the point where there no longer is any economic growth, there is only uneconomic growth.” His rationale is, “the costs of things like depletion of resources and pollution resulting from consuming resources”

      Really? The world is doomed? Sounds a bit of hyperbolic to me. Didn’t Malthus say that 200+ years ago?

      Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

      Like

      1. Roger, when you look around and take note of all the (evidence based) stress our ecosystems are under, do you still maintain they should continue to be rapidly converted into the monetized world without consideration of the hidden externality costs? The damage being done is quite real. One needn’t be a “doomsdayist” to be mindful of the myriad of issues at hand. Your response seems rather cavalier for such a smart and thoughtful citizen.

        Do you not think a reversal of incentives to change our course is a possibility?

        Like

  1. Roger,

    There are a lot of great ideas circulating out there. The first step is admitting the addiction to the crack pipe of consumerism and perpetual “growth”. “De-doctrinating” will be a difficult process.

    Professor Daily lists some general concepts at the end of his piece. Other ingredients to the winning recipe include;

    1) Negative interest
    2) Steady-state economic de-growth
    3) Relocalization & restoration of community
    4) Alternative & complimentary currencies (Bernard Leitaer)
    5) Resource based economy.

    http://onthecommons.org/stirrings-degrowth-movement

    http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2011/06/will-a-resource-based-economy-work/

    http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12

    Like

  2. Pete,

    That’s the crack pipe of dreamland, where everyone is good and equal and without ambition, and the world is Eden — more suited to a Sunday sermon than a discussion of economics.

    These utopians labor under one false belief: The world is limited to what we now see and now know; we will use up everything, poison everything and ruin everything, and we will not be able to think of survival solutions.

    How will we live:
    –after the oil is gone?
    –if current farming techniques don’t produce enough food?
    –in a warmer earth?
    –after a huge meteor strike?

    Do you really believe mankind will not find answers?

    Like

  3. Utter hogwash based on Cartesian/Hobbesian/Social Darwinist propaganda and dogma with no basis in reality. Sorry you don’t take time to think and don’t get it. Just so you know, the “utopia” is the box you are operating in.

    You’ve conveniently avoided current ecosystems crisis occuring on several levels. The technology tower of babel faith ideology is irresponsible at best.

    The status quo refers to anyone challenging its paradigm as “utopian” or “radical”… someone really intelligent just pointed the obvious out…

    “When we say radical, we must always keep in mind that we mean radical only from the point of view of the status quo. Objectively, it’s today’s status quo which is radical, extreme, unnatural, inefficient, impractical, and from the point of view of helping people live more happily, anti-human. Positive democracy, rebuilding community, anti-corporatism and anti-statism, as radical as these are from the system point of view, in fact comprise a far more moderate, common sense, rational, practical way of life. This is “radical” only from the perspective of the Status Quo Lie, which seeks to turn reality upside down.”

    Roger, you may want to pick up a copy of David Graeber’s “Debt, The first 5000 Years.” It’s a real anthropological look at the history of money and community credit. It will blow many of your false assumptions about humans and “economics” right out of the water. Of course, it will require that you exit your indoctrinated box for a fleeting moment in time.

    Like

  4. “Status quo” is in the eye of the beholder. I believe in growth; it’s you who believes in no growth, aka “status quo.”

    Anyway, I understand. You feel the sky is falling, and I am foolish not to see that. I think you’re a bunch of Henny Pennys. Who’s right? Well, so far, I am, for we still are here, better than ever.

    But you’d better pray you’re not right, because humans are not going to change the way you want them to.

    Like

    1. Sorry you believe that. Cognitive dissonance at its best. “Better than ever?” That’s a knee slapper. I’m quite hopeful for the future, hardly “henny penny” (lazy terminology for anyone awake and paying attention).

      Like

  5. Pete,

    You don’t think things are better today than in the past? I suppose it depends on your criteria. How about today vs. 1000 years ago, a relatively short span in the history of humans. Lifespan might be a good one. Knowledge, too. Education. Justice. Medicine. Infant survival. Comfort. Health.

    Exactly what are your criteria?

    As for progress, make a list of nations according to what you believe the word “growth” (which you oppose) applies. Compare the nations with the most “growth” vs. those with the least.

    In which nations do the poorest people have the better lives?

    Like

  6. Rodger, I can’t keep up with all the redirections of the original thesis, which never stated that good things didn’t come out of technological advances in society and that there wasn’t a time where growth was beneficial. Besides, listing all the wonderful things doesn’t cancel out the current set of crises. There is a paradox of many of the conveniences of the modern world. Modern technological advances aren’t always used for beneficial purposes and there is a long list of unintended consequences and unfulfilled promises.

    I’ll tell you how I don’t measure “better than ever”…. more cars, bigger houses, larger lawns, bigger walmarts, growing prison industrial complex, more wars, toxic air, toxic water, toxic frankenfood supply, nuclear fallout, mass starvations, mass deforestation, dessertification, sick for profit medicine, I can keep going for days…. and I certainly don’t fall for reductive thinking. Consumerism! I got mine, baby!

    In any case, what we have here is a failure to drop the short-term bandaid prescriptions in favor of real long-term solutions.

    As far as “nations” go. The U.S. is roughly 5% of the world population and consumes 25%ish of its resources. You do the math. It’s certainly nice to be sitting in the middle of the empire, but as you’ve pointed out, the austerity guns are being turned inward….

    Like

  7. Pete, either you favor growth or you don’t. I can’t keep track of your yes, no, maybe “positions.”.

    Then you dispute “better than ever,” and when I ask you what your criteria are, you list what your criteria aren’t. Classic cop-out.

    I gave you my list. What’s yours (again).

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Like

  8. Rodger, let’s say I play along with the reframing of the debate to “look what growth gave us” and parse back and forth on whether there was quality living, “education”, knowledge (of what, what were they missing, marketing and advertising?) back at a randomly chosen 1,000 years ago. By the way Socrates died at 70 of death sentence 399 BC, not natural causes and was pretty “knowledgeable”. What is that argument going to prove, that growth is an absolute good?

    We can go on about modern society people being kept alive with drugs/pills (“medicine”) and connected to tubes or working 70 years at a dead end sweatshop job. Longer lifespan? Stats please. Better life, maybe? I dunno. Where is all that extra leisure time technology promised us? The hamster wheel is spinning faster than ever…but I digress… I think it’s a silly discussion. Justice? Really?

    We are here now and must look forward, not pat ourselves on the back for all our great accomplishments.

    My personal criteria (paraphrased, not that anyone gives a hoot), is a transformation from trying to dominate nature (as human exceptionalism and “growth” compels) and live a more respectful, harmonious life with the natural world. A simple life with a roof over the head, family and friends in proximity, and access to modest resources. Non-toxic air, safe water, fertile soil to work. I think health, wellness, fulfillment, happiness, peace, sense of community will all thrive without all the excess confinements provided by artificially produced scarcity.

    Being a debt peon to a command/consumer driven economy is no way to live a quality life. But even if you loved it. Even if you adored growth. Even if you support all the crime, war, things that go boom, prison for profit, resource depletion and all the other great things that help prop up the revered and awesome GDP, you still got major problems as you approach the very real limits of the physical world moving forward. You conveniently solved all those in the beginning of the disucssion with “technology” though. Good luck, we still have politicians discussing friggin birth control…Pardon the rest of us if we decide to get a little more proactive than that.

    “Sovereign” means self-governing. I think you may have to change the name of your monetary theory because there’s absolutely none of that happening.

    Curious what your take is on Monsanto and GMO’s, seed patents and the like. Any chance of a post?

    Enjoyed the discussion. Gonna go try and scrounge up some untainted food to keep me out of the sickpital… 😉

    Up and over ~ Pete

    Like

  9. Pete,

    Love it. Very poetic. Agreed. Technology does bad things . . . and good things. Like knives, can kill or cut bread. So what, no knives?

    Personally, I like living longer. My wife of 56 years has cancer. Thank heaven for the modern surgery and drugs that are giving us more time together. On balance, progress is better than no progress. Old saying: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    And yes, the U.S. is Monetarily Sovereign and can create the money to provide Medicare to all Americans, and go to Mars, and give everyone an education beyond high school, and eliminate poverty and homelessness, and clean the air and water, and eliminate global warming, except . . . except, the Tea/debt-hawks have taken Monetary Sovereignty from us and convinced Americans that somehow money (aka “debt”) is a bad thing, and we should live the lives of 17th century monks.

    If you’re going to hate someone, hate the people who, with ignorance of economics, have taken away the single most valuable asset any nation can have — more valuable than all the land, buildings, rivers, bridges, yes even more valuable than the people themselves — Monetary Sovereignty. Because of them, we soon may be Greece.

    Nothing wrong with GMOs. Nature does it all the time. How do you think you evolved? Don’t like patenting things that already exist, however.

    And finally, so long as humans don’t arbitrarily limit their imaginations, there are no limits to the physical world, other than the speed of light. And even that, maybe not.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Like

  10. “So what, no knives?” Nope. Just saying it cuts both ways and isn’t always the grand solution to every problem.

    “My wife of 56 years has cancer.” I’m glad to hear you are getting more time. Lost my mother 10 years ago at the young age of 52 to cancer and she lead about as clean and healthy a lifestyle as possible. It wasn’t the cancer that killed her, it was the chemo. I could go into a long diatribe about American Medicine with regards to disease treatment, which is sickness based, not wellness based. It doesn’t address root causes, malnutrition and the presence of toxic build up (much of which comes from our toxic environment) that causes us to be sick in the first place. Cancer is actually your body telling you that it is struggling with another issue.

    This might be of interest. Fascinating, maddening, unbelievable….

    http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

    The industry is often a one step forward, two steps back and has one thing in mind, repeat customers. I have two close family mermbers on depression meds (did they have all these conditions that required pills a thousand years ago?). Then there are the pills to address the side effects of the initial pills and the pills to address those side effects. All synthetic. It’s a “growth” industry. We are even making up new “conditions” now. But nobody is properly schooled on what it is (mostly nutrition)exactly that we are putting in our systems to make us sick in the first place.

    Genetic engineering doesn’t happen in nature. Scientists force genes from bacteria and viruses into plant DNA, which result in dangerous side effects. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

    GMOs are not “Green.” GMOs use far more herbicides, damage soil and marine ecology, harm beneficial insects, and cross pollinate. Their self-propagating genetic pollution will outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste.

    “there are no limits to the physical world, other than the speed of light. And even that, maybe not.” – Well, when we get done raping and pillaging this planet, we can follow Newt Gingrich to his moon colony!

    Rodger, we’d probably have a knee-slapping time having a beer together. We just disagree about a couple of things and probably aren’t too far off on the others. You think we need more money, and I think we need to operate as much as we can outside the money realm. At least until we aren’t under the thumb of the usurious creditor class.

    One more. I believe this is called “juking the stats”.

    http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082023

    Like

    1. Beer? Beer???!! OMG, haven’t you read about the evils of BEER? http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Alcohol%20Kills/alcohol_kills.htm

      This is why it’s impossible to have a sane discussion with a tree-hugger — especially a young tree-hugger. It’s like debating religion.

      They exaggerate what is said: “. . . isn’t always the grand solution to every problem.” (Who said it was?)

      They ese non-typical examples: “It wasn’t the cancer that killed her, it was the chemo.” (Which means . . . ?)

      They have selective memory: ” . . . did they have all these conditions that required pills a thousand years ago?” (No, they just died before reaching the age of 40)

      Offer scientific ignorance: “Genetic engineering doesn’t happen in nature.” (False. That is how we all evolved from one-celled creatures).

      And use nonsensical and excessive wording: “Well, when we get done raping and pillaging this planet, we can follow Newt Gingrich to his moon colony!” (Puleeze. This is your version of a discussion??)

      Sorry, no beer for me. It might contain one of these natural ingredients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

      Like

  11. http://responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

    10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs (which is becoming increasingly more difficult, that sh#t is in everything!)

    1. GMOs are unhealthy.
    The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

    Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

    The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

    2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
    GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

    3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
    Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

    Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

    4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
    By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

    5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
    Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

    6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety.
    Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

    7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
    Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

    8. GMOs harm the environment.
    GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

    The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
    On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

    10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
    Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

    The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.

    Like

    1. Consider the source.

      A biased, one-sided report. The above could be said about virtually every medicine and even every natural plant on earth — even about Pete.

      Here’s the clue: “Because GMOs give no consumer benefits . . . ,” What a ridiculous statement. Shows the report has zero credibility.

      Given a few days, one could compile a list like this about grapefruits.

      For a far more balanced view, go to Human Genome Project Information

      Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

      Like

  12. And Pete,

    I’m a bit surprised to see you so attached to the Internet, one of the prime symbols of progress. Do you really own a computer, cell phone, camera, iPad, iPod, digital watch, in fact, digital anything? Shame.

    Hating progress, you surely avoid the results of progress. You don’t own a car, and you never fly or take a bus or train. You have no central heat, indoor plumbing, anything made of nylon or other man-made fibers, TV or radio. You don’t use any man-made medicine. Nor do you use any doctor or dentist who would use a chemical not found in nature.

    Hating progress, you don’t drink water from the faucet, use electricity for anything — and that means no lightbulbs of any kind — apply sunscreen, bug repellent or use toothpaste. And no vaccinations, for you or for your children.

    Hating progress, you avoid concrete and asphalt, paint, aluminum, copper and steel, as both their manufacture and their use is polluting.

    Hating progress, eating is a problem for you. No meat, of course. Fish are overfished. Vegetables are transported. You can grow your own, but storage is a problem without electricity. No canned or frozen foods. And how do you cook anything without using natural gas or wood? And after you eat, who cleanly disposes of your poop?

    Hating progress, you are a modern nature boy, sitting back and enjoying the fruits of progress while decrying it. In short, a real hypocrite.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s