My post was pointing out the absurdity of the statement that socialism always causes economic decline. You make no counterargument, but suggest that Norway can have the prosperity of socialism because of US military protection? I'm don't follow the connection. I do agree that Norway is a small country with a small military, but what does that have to do with socialism? If you are suggesting that a strong military in the US protects Norway, then you contradict your point: the military is among the most socialized American institutions. We are forced to pay for it for the common protection, and it is controlled by bureaucracy rather than private industry. I have mixed feelings about the Affordable Healthcare Act. My goal was to try to focus on facts instead of tangential falsehoods.

"Socialism has always resulted in a lower standard of living for the people it's purported to help." You don't do credit to your position when you state outright falsehoods. For a clear counterexample, check out Norway. By a number of indicators, they have the highest standard of living in the world, and are also one of the more socialist nations on Earth, and their prosperity has come in parallel with their switch from a monarchy to a socialist democracy. All of Scandinavia and Western Europe in general have followed this pattern. Extreme, tyrannical socialism certainly fails, just like extreme, tyrannical capitalism does, but nations that respect civil liberties tend to do well economically, regardless of whether they have a more cooperative or independent economic governance. There may be facts to bolster your cause, but baseless talking points are not facts.

Way, way off. The numbers are more like a 30% decrease in yields, based on current farming methods. Considering that we haven't applied science to organic farming like we have to chemical farming, due to easy postwar chemical availability, the gap could probably be closed even more. Yes, conventional farms have marginally higher productivity. But you are off by an order of magnitude with your "5x" claim.

As a homeschooling parent, I can back this up. Luckily, the internet opens up a world of information beyond creepy textbooks that say that you will to go to a lake of fire if you think that the earth is more than 6000 years old (I am not making that up).

Looks like I didn't catch the newer research. Looks like the monarch threat turns out to be missing. I might point out, though, that the primary concern with genetically modified crops is the threat to biodiversity within those crops. Just because it doesn't kill pretty butterflies doesn't mean it's good.