As the European Union moves closer to approving the cultivation of GMOs despite stiff widespread opposition, it ought to be paying urgent attention to the agricultural arms race unfolding in the United States. The gospel of high-tech genetically modified (GM) crops is no longer sounding quite so sweet.

Roundup-resistant “superweeds” are plaguing Monsanto crops across southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, abandon their farms or … return to conventional crops  … // 

… US Farmers Turn to Organics:

Farmers across the United States are reported to be going back to conventional non-GMO crops instead. According to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, retail sales of organic food went up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997. [3] The market is so active that organic farms have struggled at times to produce sufficient supply to keep up with the rapid growth in consumer demand, leading to periodic shortages of organic products.

The new UK Conservative-Liberal coalition government is strongly backing lifting a de facto ban on GMO in that country. UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Prof. John Beddington, recently wrote an article in which he misleadingly claimed ” The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible.” He went on to promise “cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases” and more. I think we can pass that one up, thank you.

A recent study by Iowa State University and the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production showed notable advantages of organic farming over GMO or even conventional non-GMO crops. In an experiment lasting four years – three years transition and first year organic – the study showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.

As well, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has recently been published, the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. [4] As Dr Ho argues, a fundamental shift in farming practice is needed urgently, before the agricultural catastrophe spreads further across Germany and the EU to the rest of the world [5]. (full text and Notes 1 to 5).

Published on Global Research.ca, by Mike Whitney,August 28, 2010.

The equities markets are in disarray while the bond markets continue to surge. The avalanche of bad news has started to take its toll on investor sentiment. Barry Ritholtz’s “The Big Picture” reports that the bears have taken the high-ground and bullishness has dropped to its lowest level since March ‘09 when the market did a quick about-face and began a year-long rally. Could it happen again? No one knows, but the mood has definitely darkened along with the data. There’s no talk of green shoots any more, and even the deficit hawks have gone into hibernation. It feels like the calm before the storm, which is why all eyes were on Jackson Hole this morning where Fed chairman Ben Bernanke delivered his verdict on the state of the economy on Friday. 

Wall Street was hoping the Fed would “go big” and promise another hefty dose of quantitative easing to push down long-term interest rates and jolt consumers out of their lethargy. But Bernanke provided few details choosing instead this vague commitment:

“The Committee is prepared to provide additional monetary accommodation through unconventional measures if it proves necessary, especially if the outlook were to deteriorate significantly” … //

… Bernanke takes the threat of deflation seriously. His earlier speeches laid out a deflation-fighting strategy that is so radical it would shock the public and Wall Street alike. Here’s an excerpt from a speech he gave in 2002 which illustrates the Fed boss’s willingness to move heaven and earth to fend off the scourge of pernicious deflation:

Ben Bernanke: “My thesis here is that cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities in Japan could help solve the problems that each policymaker faces on its own. Consider for example a tax cut for households and businesses that is explicitly coupled with incremental BOJ purchases of government debt – so that the tax cut is in effect financed by money creation. Moreover, assume that the Bank of Japan has made a commitment, by announcing a price-level target, to reflate the economy, so that much or all of the increase in the money stock is viewed as permanent.

Under this plan, the BOJ’s balance sheet is protected by the bond conversion program, and the government’s concerns about its outstanding stock of debt are mitigated because increases in its debt are purchased by the BOJ rather than sold to the private sector. Moreover, consumers and businesses should be willing to spend rather than save the bulk of their tax cut: They have extra cash on hand, but – because the BOJ purchased government debt in the amount of the tax cut – no current or future debt service burden has been created to imply increased future taxes.

Essentially, monetary and fiscal policies together have increased the nominal wealth of the household sector, which will increase nominal spending and hence prices….from a fiscal perspective, the policy would almost certainly be stabilizing, in the sense of reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Potential roles for monetary-fiscal cooperation are not limited to BOJ support of tax cuts. BOJ purchases of government debt could also support spending programs, to facilitate industrial restructuring, for example. The BOJ’s purchases would mitigate the effect of the new spending on the burden of debt and future interest payments perceived by households, which should reduce the offset from decreased consumption. More generally, by replacing interest-bearing debt with money, BOJ purchases of government debt lower current deficits and interest burdens and thus the public’s expectations of future tax obligations.” (Some Thoughts on Monetary Policy in Japan, Governor Ben S. Bernanke, The Federal Reserve Board Tokyo, Japan, May 31, 2003).

Yikes! This is monetization writ large. Anyone who thought Bernanke lacked cohones should reread this passage. The Fed chair is prepared to launch the most radical intervention in history, monetary Shock and Awe. But will the bewhiskered professor be able to persuade congress to follow his lead, after all, the fiscal component is critical to the program’s success. They’re two spokes on the same wheel. Here’s how (I imagine) it would work: Congress passes emergency legislation to suspend the payroll tax for two years stuffing hundreds of billions instantly into the pockets of struggling consumers. The Fed makes up the difference by purchasing an equal amount of long-term Treasuries keeping the yields low while the economy resets, employment rises, asset prices balloon, and markets soar. As the economy accelerates, the dollar steadily loses ground triggering a sharp increase in exports and sparking a viscous trade war with foreign trading partners. Then……it’s anyone’s guess? Either Bernanke’s “nuclear option” succeeds in resuscitating the comatose economy or foreign holders of dollars and dollar-backed assets dump their gargantuan trove of US loot in a pile and set it ablaze. It’s all a roll of the dice. (full text).

(Articles by Mike Whitney).

… The relationship between oil and economics is a paradoxical one.

On one hand, the production functions used by most economic theories are net of purchased inputs, so energy in any of its many and varied forms is nowhere to be found. Moreover, until 1973, coal, natural gas and oil were so cheap and the long-run supplies believed to be so abundant that their future hardly seemed worth worrying about. In fact, both Saudi Arabia and the oil industry continued to propagate the myth of this country as a cornucopia of crude oil right through 2004. 

[This "balloon" was "punctured" in 2008 by none other than the King of Saudi Arabia and top officials of Saudi-Aramco, the national oil enterprise. He said in effect that future discoveries will be for the Saudi children and not (by implication) for your SUV ! And the top officials said that Saudi production will peak within a few years.]

On the other hand, since 1973, the impact of fluctuations in oil prices on the rhythm of economic activity [and vice versa] has been impossible to ignore. So in the arena of applied economics, the interaction between the two has generated a large literature among economists and other concerned professionals, some of which is contradictory and/or acrimonious !

In addition, the debate is complicated by issues of methodology as well as of substance … //

… My impression of the present status of the debate over oil prices and economic activity is as follows  —

[1] Frequently there is a relationship, albeit a complicated one.

[2] Causality can run in either direction. That is, an oil-price spike can help to bring on a recession, but a prolonged period of economic growth can provoke an increase in oil prices, as happened with the run-up which ended with WTI at $147 per barrel in 2008.

In the latter case, the principal “drivers” seem to have been the following:
[a] A history of prolonged economic growth in many countries.

[b] Anticipations of continued strong growth by both the Chinese and the Indian economies, regardless of what might happen elsewhere.

[c] Failure to anticipate the financial crisis which brought on the Great Recession.

[Aside —  Since my second son and one of my nephews are the fifth generation of my mother's family who work in the construction and housing industries, I believe that this crisis was foreseeable and preventable (without consulting an economist). But that is a story for another day !]

[3] When changes in oil prices do impact the economy more than vice versa, the impact is frequently asymmetrical and nonlinear. That is, a dollar-per-barrel increase at one time will not have same impact [in an opposite direction] as a dollar-per-barrel decrease at another. Metaphorically speaking, what goes up does not always come down the same way.

[4] In any one situation, there is no one explanation of what happened. Typically there are several, with one predominating, and feedbacks complicating our interpretation of events at every turn. Supply and demand are almost always present, but they seldom tell the whole story.

Having hopefully answered the question, I would like to add that it is often much harder to forecast demand, prices and supply for the oil industry than it is for most other industries.

This situation is partly due to [1] through [4] above. However, there are other factors. The “bottom line” seems to be that the oil industry is rather different from most other industries and different in important ways: … (full long text).

Published on The Economist, Aug 26th 2010.

… The wrong turn:

To many Americans, the misadventure in Iraq has come to symbolise a broader wrong turn America made after Osama bin Laden assaulted it on September 11th nine years ago. Nearly six out of ten Americans now say that they oppose even Mr Obama’s “good” war—the one against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. An America that is bleeding economically at home, with unemployment stuck at nearly 10% and debts as tall as the eye can see, is losing confidence in its ability, and perhaps in its need, to shape events in far-flung regions such as Central Asia and the Middle East.

Even in an age of austerity America still towers above all-comers in military power, as well it should given its annual defence spending of $700 billion, almost as much as the rest of the world put together (see article). But the past decade has laid bare the limits of high-tech power. Whizz-bang technology enabled America to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq in the twinkle of an eye with negligible losses. Subduing them has been harder. Of the 2m Americans who have served in the two wars over the past decade, some 40,000 have been wounded and more than 5,000 killed … //

… Still indispensable:

Even that abbreviated list is a heavy burden for a war-weary country struck by its worst recession since the second world war. Many Americans would like the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq to signal the beginning of the end of America’s overall embroilment in the benighted regions of the world. They look with understandable envy on rising powers such as China and India that have devoted the past decade to the serious business of becoming rich. The mistake of Iraq has strengthened the instinct against foreign adventures. But it is no less of a mistake to imagine that the dangers of terrorism, proliferation and war will simply vanish if America were now to walk away from all the bad places. If America does not take on the task of containing such threats, who else will, or can? For all the difficulties at home, the fact remains that the biggest gainer from a strong America abroad is America itself. Whatever his gut tells him, Mr Obama seems to understand that. (full text).

If “executive” MBA programmes are not much different from their full-time counterparts, how do business schools justify charging twice the price?

IT STARTED with a little-reported court judgement in an American backwater. In 2007 Ruth Creps, a resident of Idaho, was made redundant by her employer. She applied for funds from the Federal Trade Adjustment Assistance programme, a scheme designed to help retrain workers who lost their jobs due to international trade competition. Ms Creps wanted to take an MBA at nearby Boise University, but decided that she would rather do the $41,000 part-time “executive” MBA (EMBA)—which is usually paid for by employers who are looking to train up their high potentials—instead of the full-time programme which cost just $14,000. 

When her request was turned down Ms Creps fought them all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court, only to lose because the court decided the more expensive programme was not significantly different from its traditional alternative.

The decision was seized upon by business education commentators and a debate began as to how business schools could justify charging so much more for their executive MBAs. At INSEAD in France, for example, a full-time MBA costs €52,000, while the EMBA comes in at €90,000. Where schools getting away with it simply because firms have deeper pockets than individuals?

IT STARTED with a little-reported court judgement in an American backwater. In 2007 Ruth Creps, a resident of Idaho, was made redundant by her employer. She applied for funds from the Federal Trade Adjustment Assistance programme, a scheme designed to help retrain workers who lost their jobs due to international trade competition. Ms Creps wanted to take an MBA at nearby Boise University, but decided that she would rather do the $41,000 part-time “executive” MBA (EMBA)—which is usually paid for by employers who are looking to train up their high potentials—instead of the full-time programme which cost just $14,000. When her request was turned down Ms Creps fought them all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court, only to lose because the court decided the more expensive programme was not significantly different from its traditional alternative.

The decision was seized upon by business education commentators and a debate began as to how business schools could justify charging so much more for their executive MBAs. At INSEAD in France, for example, a full-time MBA costs €52,000, while the EMBA comes in at €90,000. Where schools getting away with it simply because firms have deeper pockets than individuals?

Indeed one of the biggest challenges facing executive-MBA providers is finding faculty that can hold the attention of such a demanding audience. Most EMBA participants have already learned the basic lessons of business and are on their chosen programme because they want better insight into the way they are operating within their present company, rather than for personal development or a career change. Such lessons are both difficult and expensive to teach.

EMBA students expect to be taught by people who not only have the theory but who also have demonstrable real-life experience. Sean Kilbride, a professor at HEC School of Management, Paris, says that this means flying in top professors from all over the world and recruiting business veterans with credibility, including former CEOs … (full text).

… Actually there are several big questions.

To what extent are “combat troops” being replaced by Special Operations forces, other U.S. personnel, and private contractor mercenaries?

Will all U.S. troops leave in December 2011, as the U.S.-Iraqi agreement specifies? Reports are that Special Operations forces will stay on. What about other U.S. forces and private contractors? 

What exactly is the U.S. role in Iraq between now and the end of 2011? And what will it be beyond that?

What is the U.S. responsibility to the Iraqi people, and how should it be fulfilled? … //

… We do have a responsibility to help rebuild their hospitals, water systems, schools, cultural facilities – wrecked in the invasion or later under our watch or by our own contractors. But the U.S. should not be directing the money or deciding the projects.

Unfortunately, we’re seeing some warning signs that point in the wrong direction. A massive State Department presence in Iraq is being developed. Vast numbers of private U.S. contractors are deployed there. And notions are being floated that the U.S. military presence may “need” to continue beyond next year.

Let’s make sure all of our occupation of Iraq ends – military, economic and political.

It’s time to shed the old foreign policy habit, that sees Iraq as nothing but a giant oil well to fuel America’s oil-based economy, and a geopolitical pawn and military launch-pad to keep the rest of the region’s oil flowing our way. We just can’t afford it – not in taxpayer dollars, not in human lives, not in the survival of our planet. (full text).

Published on Voltairenet.org, par Lindsay Beyerstein, Jessica Lee, Matt Renner, 18 août 2010.

En 2007, l’administration Bush tenta de faire adopter une loi assimilant les défenseurs des droits des animaux, les militants anti-mondialisation, les membres du mouvement pour la vérité sur le 11-Septembre, et bien d’autres groupes contestataires à des terroristes. La Maison-Blanche s’appuya au Congrès sur la représentante Jane Harman (qui vient de racheter Newsweek) et sur le sénateur Joe Liberman (figure du mouvement sioniste). Face aux critiques, ce projet a été abandonné. Au demeurant, l’administration Obama a fait bien pire en ordonnant purement et simplement l’assassinat de citoyens états-uniens suspectés de liens avec « le » terrorisme. 

Dans ce qui est interprété comme une atteinte surprenante aux libertés d’expression, d’association, et à la vie privée des citoyens états-uniens, la Chambre des représentants a voté, le 23 octobre 2007, la « Loi de prévention contre la radicalisation violente et le terrorisme national » [1], par 404 voix contre 6. Le Sénat examine entre-temps un projet de loi qui l’accompagne, le S.1959.

La Loi dite H.R. 1955 prévoit la création d’une Commission nationale et la mise en place d’un « Centre universitaire d’excellence », pour étudier et proposer un nouvel arsenal juridique de prévention et de gestion de la menace posée par la « radicalisation » des citoyens des Etats-Unis … (full long text).

MOSCOW, Aug. 24 (UPI) — Even though Russia and the United States have the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, Moscow is backing a nuclear initiative to ensure that Africa remains free of nuclear weapons.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has submitted to the Duma for ratification two protocols to a treaty establishing Africa as a nuclear-free weapons zone, Itar-Tass reported.

The protocols propose a ban on nuclear tests in Africa along with the use of nuclear weapons against African countries. 

The African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Pelindaba Treaty was signed in Cairo in 1996 but only formally entered into force last year. Twenty-four African countries have signed but not yet ratified the treaty … //

… Roiling international issues around the treaty is the status of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, controlled by the United Kingdom and currently leased as a military base by the United States, leaving its status under terms of the treaty unclear, especially as Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago claimed by Mauritius despite British claims of sovereignty. (full text).