Ten years after the 30 million deaths due to collectivization of agriculture in China, Nixon's Agriculture Secretary announced the USA policy was "get big or get out." That is English for collectivization.
Democracies are frustrating because they are not as fast as dictatorships in getting things done. On the other hand, to take it easy is to ultimately get more done. 30 million deaths in a few years raises a stink. If you can spread the deaths out over time, well, the policy can last longer.
Forty years into this process of get big or get out, Big Ag spent $20 million to narrowly defeat a vote on whether to label GMO foods in Washington State. $500 of that $20 million was contributed within Washington State. The rest from the outside.
There is no science yet to say GMO is deleterious to your health, but what science there is unsettling and much is suppressed, like the tobacco science way back when. And if they have 20 million to defeat a little sunshine, what do they have to buy off a researcher?
If I was a researcher, I would go get solid science proving the deleterious effects of GMO, and then sell it to Monsanto. I am sure it is happening right now.
Get big or get out is a clear slogan. It does not say "we prefer big", but the imperative "you must get big" added that the small must get out. This policy and banking practices has pretty much accomplished the goal of collectivization in USA.
I am a life member of Puget Consumer Co-ops, a leftist grocer which for years has championed organic and healthy foods, with a strife-ridden membership whose number of opinions exceeds their numbers. That is the way it should be. For years they have supported company reps to sit on State and Fed organic boards only to find ultimate disillusion.
Now to get skunked in an election must smart. And no doubt they will retreat to campaign finance reform in response. But how about another response? How about the term "organic" be set by PCC, not by the State. How about accepting the making definitions is no business of the State?
No doubt a State is most concerned with something as basic as food supply. But subsidies and regulations only make things worse. Collectivization is always a disaster, whether fast as in a dictatorship or slow as in a democracy.
A good first step would be for an Ag Secretary to formally renounce the USA policy of "get big or get out" and then start to dismantle the system o subsidies and regulations that enforce the get big or get out policy. And further, to unhinge the connection between banks and the policy.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Democracies are frustrating because they are not as fast as dictatorships in getting things done. On the other hand, to take it easy is to ultimately get more done. 30 million deaths in a few years raises a stink. If you can spread the deaths out over time, well, the policy can last longer.
Forty years into this process of get big or get out, Big Ag spent $20 million to narrowly defeat a vote on whether to label GMO foods in Washington State. $500 of that $20 million was contributed within Washington State. The rest from the outside.
There is no science yet to say GMO is deleterious to your health, but what science there is unsettling and much is suppressed, like the tobacco science way back when. And if they have 20 million to defeat a little sunshine, what do they have to buy off a researcher?
If I was a researcher, I would go get solid science proving the deleterious effects of GMO, and then sell it to Monsanto. I am sure it is happening right now.
Get big or get out is a clear slogan. It does not say "we prefer big", but the imperative "you must get big" added that the small must get out. This policy and banking practices has pretty much accomplished the goal of collectivization in USA.
 |
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812.html |
Now to get skunked in an election must smart. And no doubt they will retreat to campaign finance reform in response. But how about another response? How about the term "organic" be set by PCC, not by the State. How about accepting the making definitions is no business of the State?
No doubt a State is most concerned with something as basic as food supply. But subsidies and regulations only make things worse. Collectivization is always a disaster, whether fast as in a dictatorship or slow as in a democracy.
A good first step would be for an Ag Secretary to formally renounce the USA policy of "get big or get out" and then start to dismantle the system o subsidies and regulations that enforce the get big or get out policy. And further, to unhinge the connection between banks and the policy.
 |
| http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/bank-merger-history |
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment