Until Americans get much, much better at basic mathematics and risk management in general, it is foolish to allow the average person to invest in a venture capital manner -- and history is a guide as too why.

During the years 2000 - 2007 millions upon millions of Americans took out first, second, and third mortgages to invest in real estate -- a tangible product that historically is a good investment. They all signed loan documents containing something called "The Truth in Lending Act" disclosure that says in very clear, very understandable terms "You are being loaned money at 1-2%. Your interest rate can eventually increase to 7-8%. This loan may cost you WAY more than you can ever afford to repay." Everyone who signed a loan document during those years saw that document, saw the possibility that they could get screwed, and said "I'm going to get rich".

When the bottom of the market fell out people didn't blame themselves for ignoring the Truth in Lending Act disclosure. They didn't blame themselves for ignoring the mathematics behind interest rates and monthly payments. They didn't blame themselves for not having money management skills and avoiding overextending themselves. Instead they blamed the bankers and society in general. Way easier.

If the average person is allowed to invest in venture capital schemes then a lot of them are going to lose their asses because most businesses don't work out. Until we live in a society where it is no longer OK to say things like "I just don't understand math" then it is not OK to allow those same people to risk their savings on long shot gambles. Because, as we have already seen, society will inevitably have to bail those same people out when things go bad.

Looks to me like the graph says > 40% of the GDP is spent by the government. Again, how much do you want to be spent on socialized programs, 100%?

What's the difference between military spending and welfare? At least military spending supports engineers, scientists, and people working for a living. Welfare money may as well be thrown down the drain.

You are not understanding my replies if you think that I have no objections to your details. As I have said over and over again: you don't provide any real solutions, you ignore basic economics, and your ideas are not grounded in reality.

If a crop can be selectively breed to have a certain trait, can it also be genetically modified to have that trait?

Are you proposing that Africans clear more land for planting? Why not just use GMO crops on the same amount of land?

Selectively breed crops cannot survive in the wild. They do not contribute to biodiversity. GMO crops can be adapted much quicker to changing conditions like pesticide resistance.

Non-GMO crops require more pesticides and herbicides, pollute the ground water more, require more land to be cleared for growing area, and do not contribute to biodiversity.

True socialist states are states like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, France, Italy, and Spain -- all countries that are currently or will soon be embroiled in a debt crisis. Why would you advocate the same policies for the US?

BRIC countries do not owe their growth to socialist policies. Quite the opposite -- each has enjoyed significant growth because of less government involvement over the last few decades.

And I think we can surmize, given the US's current level of social-capitalist involvement, as compared to the rest of the modern world (G7 and BRIC), that we are not anywhere remotely close to the excessively socialist side.

The US government spends over 40% of the GDP each year on an increasingly upward trend:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

At what point (75%, 85%, 100%) would you say the US government is "socialist enough". Keep in mind that at its peak the USSR only directed 45% of their command economy.

Detroit failed because unions (socialism) made manufacturing unprofitable and it shifted overseas.

New Orleans failed because it is > 20 feet below sea level.

Neither are an example of failed capitalist policies.

You are personally attacking me. I have refrained from attacking you personally even though I find your opinions very naive.

You say things like "distribution is the problem". As though building more roads will suddenly feed people. Wrong.

You ignore basic economics: supply and demand. The amount of food grown in Europe (or anywhere) directly affects the price of food in Africa.

You ignore basic mathematics. It takes more land to grow organic food than it does to grow food with chemicals. More land means less supply. Less supply means higher prices. Higher prices mean more people in Africa starve. Europe is not an island all to itself.

You don't propose any solutions that are rooted in science, engineering, or economics. You simply point to articles written by people who are trying to manipulate public opinion for their own greedy goals.

You seem to know nothing about genetic engineering. It is many times faster to engineer a plant than it is to selectively breed a plant.

There is no need to attack me as person -- I disagree with your point of view but I do not lower myself to insulting your person -- please grant me the same courtesy.

If you could point to any sort of scientific references I could most easily be swayed.

GMO has no disadvantage compared to selectively breed crops. The anti-GMO community is motivated by greed: they want to protect European farmers from lower priced imports. The anti-GMO community does not care about feeding the poor in Africa or India, they would rather see those people starve than to see a European farmer put out of business.

GMO food requires less pesticide and herbicide to grow. GMO crops can be more quickly adapted to insects and herbicide resilience because the genes can be targeted directly. Poor people will benefit from GMO food by 1) reducing the amount of fertilizer and pesticide they have to buy 2) increasing the amount of food they can grow on their land and 3) lowering the cost of the food they buy.

Organic farming is a selfish, inefficient abomination. By abandoning modern farming techniques organic farmers directly starve the poor. Those who eat organic food do so out of pure selfishness and disregard for the less advantaged.

First, GMO requires less pesticide and herbicide than non-GMO crops. Your statements about water pollution and Roundup are wrong.

Secondly, genetic modification works faster than selective breeding. GMO crops can be adapted to resistance more quickly than selective breeding.

Third, there are starving people in the world because there is not enough cheap food. GMO is the only way to grow more food on the same amount of land WITHOUT more pesticides and herbicides.

What is your solution to world hunger without GMO?

I read your responses, but they fail to answer my basic questions. I am thinking it is because English is not your native language. This is why I have simplified the question:

How do you propose to grow more food without GMO? (Feel free to pick one)

a) Do not grow more food and continue to allow people to starve to death
b) Clear more forested land to plant more crops
c) Use more fertilizer and pesticides to increase crop yields.
d) ?????

Since you seem to have a difficult time understanding and writing English, I will simplify the question:

How do you propose growing more food without GMO?

I understand where you are coming from: you feel like corporations are evil, that capitalism is a failed and corrupt enterprise, and that only the state can save the average citizen from the abuses perpetrated by the 1%? Right?

The problem is that you are ruled by emotion and gut reactions and have no sense of reason. Lets look at this specific example to show how you are being 100% irrational:

1) I have researched the term you asked me to research. That research led me to a scientific study that contradicted your claims. I asked you to cite a counter study -- which you dismissed. I am open to persuasion but you are not. This is irrational.

2) The study was created by a pro-GMO organization. The GM Genocide articles were created by anti-GMO organizations. You accept the anti-GMO material as truth yet dismiss the scientific study as propaganda. This is irrational.

3) Your thought process is irrational. For example:
    You: GMO destroys biodiversity.
    Me: How?
    You: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii
You failed to answer my question: How does GMO destroy biodiversity?

4) You said Malus sieversii is "incredibly resilient". Wikipedia says it is "almost extinct". Your statement is irrational.

5) You keep saying that GMO foods require extra pesticides and causes extra environmental damage. According to Wikipedia ("Round-up Ready" crops): Round up is less likely to end up in water supplies than the alternatives (used on non-GMO crops) like atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor. Do you understand that your statement is just plain wrong? If not, why?

A couple more items in your post don't make any rational sense to me, perhaps you could clarify:

6) "The only reason GMO is used...people that have no choice". Why don't these people have a choice? Can't they keep using their existing seeds?

7) "GMO product don't crate biodiversity". Why not? Does selective breeding create biodiversity?

8) "GMO is just a crap that destroy the planet" How does GMO destroy the planet?

I searched for GM Genocide because I have not heard of this term. I did find articles blaming GM food for Indian suicides. I also found this scientific study claiming that the suicide rates are unchanged:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india

Perhaps you could cite a counter scientific study?

As to biodiversity, I don't see how it applies at all - unless we completely abandon farming and go back to foraging. Do you think that modern day wheat or apple trees can survive in the wild without humanity? Almost every crop is the by product of selective breeding and almost every crop exists because of human maintenance. Or do you want to abandon selective breeding as well?

GMO simply refines the same process used by farmers and ranchers for thousands of years. In fact, GM would allow farmers to customize a crop to a specific growing region and climate creating more "biodiversity" than the current selective breeding approach.

The European Union spends a full 40% of their budget, around $70 billion dollars on farm subsidies. The US spends $20 billion dollars (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy). The EU spends 3x as much on subsidies even though it has 1/3 of land area under cultivation (Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404b.pdf)

Per acre Europe spends 9X as much as the US on farm subsidies. So no, your correction is not accurate at all.

The ban is on IMPORTING GMO foods -- I said nothing about growing them in Europe. Your argument about biodiversity is a complete non-sequitor.

India grows no GMO foods -- if the farmers there are devastated then it has nothing to do with GMO. Perhaps GMO would be a benefit to those farmers.