The Truth about Billionaires

originally posted by: TheRedneck
If they are growing the same crops year after year, that alone explains the desertificiation. Doing that weakens the soil, because the plants take out too much of the nutrients they need over time, and deposit too much of the nutrients they don't need. Crops need to be rotated yearly to keep the soil healthy.

I don't know what they are growing, but I'm sure they know all there is to know about it, after all agriculture is not a new thing in Europe...

I would say at least a part of what you describe can also be attributed to micro-evolution. The same winds that blow the insects to you now have always existed; the difference is that the insects are able to withstand the winters. That normally requires a pretty substantial temperature change. However, insects over time will become acclimated to new areas and expand their range.

Some winds blow from Africa to Europe, some in the opposite way, but we aren't seeing European insects in Africa.

Yes, especially in colder climates, it takes only a little warming to improve crop yields. That's what I was referring to when I earlier mentioned expanding growing seasons. But that does not decrease the amount of grapes available; it increases the amount. In that respect, a slightly warming climate is beneficial to the food supply.

It decreases the amount of grapes on the countries in the South, as it becomes less favourable to them.

What we're seeing is a climate shift, just as has been happening since before humans walked the planet. The only difference is so many people are talking about it now like it is something new. It isn't.

Nobody here is saying it's a new thing, just that it is happening.

a reply to: ArMaP

I don't know what they are growing, but I'm sure they know all there is to know about it, after all agriculture is not a new thing in Europe...

I would make the same assumption, until there was evidence of a problem. You submitted evidence of a problem.

Some winds blow from Africa to Europe, some in the opposite way, but we aren't seeing European insects in Africa.

There could be multiple reasons for that. The European insects could be poorly equipped to deal with Africa, as in, not able to compete for food (or avoid becoming food). It's a very complex arrangement, and there could be many different reasons for what you have observed.

The answer is not always "carbon dioxide."

It decreases the amount of grapes on the countries in the South, as it becomes less favourable to them.

Or it could simply be coincidental with the soil degradation. Grapes are typically not rotated; the vines last more than a year. That over time will wear out the soil if other complementary plants are not planted along with the grapes.

I happen to be restoring a grape trellis here. We always had great crops of grapes, but that trellis is in the middle of a side yard, and the grass grows along with the grapes to keep the soil healthy. Aren't most commercial grape farms tilled?

Nobody here is saying it's a new thing, just that it is happening.

You may not be saying it is a new thing, but many people are indeed saying that. That is the very basis for Global Warming: that humans are suddenly changing the climate. We're not; the climate is always changing, sometimes for our better, sometimes not.

The planet's surface changes over time. That's just how it is. As humans on the surface, we can either adapt, or go extinct. And it's not because of carbon dioxide; it's because that's just how it works.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
There could be multiple reasons for that. The European insects could be poorly equipped to deal with Africa, as in, not able to compete for food (or avoid becoming food). It's a very complex arrangement, and there could be many different reasons for what you have observed.

The difference between species is not that big, the biggest difference is the temperature.

The answer is not always "carbon dioxide."

Who said any thing about "carbon dioxide"?

Or it could simply be coincidental with the soil degradation. Grapes are typically not rotated; the vines last more than a year. That over time will wear out the soil if other complementary plants are not planted along with the grapes.

They have known that for some 4000 years.

You may not be saying it is a new thing, but many people are indeed saying that. That is the very basis for Global Warming: that humans are suddenly changing the climate. We're not; the climate is always changing, sometimes for our better, sometimes not.

You are talking to me, not to those "many people", so please don't answer me as if I said something I did not.

Will freely admit I did not read the entire thread as the first couple pages annoyed me something fierce.

It sounds all well and good to say if X amount of rich supplied Y amount of dollars we could solve world hunger.

We have never had a lack of resources directed at this (in my life time), the problem has always been getting through the corruption and teaching the people at the ground level what needs to be done to avoid the problems they have.

Want a more modern example about throwing money at the problem... US department of education, huge budget declining returns.

Hati relief funds, billions thrown at them and the country is worse off now than before.

Education is the key has always been the key///

Lastly if throwing money at it was the answer, then socialism would have worked at some point in time and it hasent.

a reply to: ArMaP

Who said any thing about "carbon dioxide"?

This side topic was instigated by a reference I made to another poster about the false narrative of Global Warming. Global Warming is the theory that the planet is warming due to excessive human production of carbon dioxide.

Did we change topics somewhere?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
This side topic was instigated by a reference I made to another poster about the false narrative of Global Warming. Global Warming is the theory that the planet is warming due to excessive human production of carbon dioxide.

Did we change topics somewhere?

That wasn't my side topic, my discussion has been always about the effects, not the causes, so no, I didn't change topic.

a reply to: ArMaP

Then we were discussing separate things. I was talking about Global Warming. I thought that was clear from my posts.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was talking about the already occurring effects of global warming or whatever they want to call it, regardless of name and theories to explain it.

I also thought that was clear.

I suppose that shows we should never assume that we know what other people are thinking.

a reply to: generik

People like Musk can easily allocate couple of billions to start a new project every year.
He makes the rockets and in couple of years he will start cashing out billions more each year from 5G starlink connection. It may take some explaining to be able to leave a bank with billion in suitcases but he can probably make billion dollar transactions from his private accounts on his phone. To say that their assets have no real value is lame. Gates is buying farmland which makes him a feudal lord now. This alone should be prohibited by law. It's not communism when you have anti-monopoly laws.
Not to mention Rotschilds, Rockefellers and other trillionaires. You have no idea. They own and control the FED. They dictate the politics. Your country resists their central banking system? There may be war coming. Ask Kennedy.

Fiat money is nothing but a social contract designed from top down. Billionaires and homeless show the disfunction. This and banks creating money out of thin air but being allowed to purchase real assets. It could be fixed in no time with couple of simple laws but I know of no politician brave enough. Ron Paul want's to audit the FED and that's pretty much it. It would not lead to dismantling it IMO. Nationalization is a common practice in non-communist countries. And if you think democrats are doing what they want I'd say they were allowed to inflate the dollar to counter Chinese artificial inflation and hoarding gold and abusing dollars. Plandemic was the tool of choice. Is it too hard to beat? Cut the families from power and you dont have to worry about it. You could stop scratching your head not knowing who is designing a new world order for you. It's easy to expose the octopus by cutting off couple of its tennacles and shoot a harpoon through its head. They would try and mud the water with something like war but it could be avoided

Also all know they are making world even better place to live .

Check-in-out this video about the sad truth of billionaires: shrinke.me...

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

To say that their assets have no real value is lame.

Apparently you have never bought or sold property. It can literally take years, and the value that is assigned to it may or may not be what one actually gets when the sale finally closes. That's what people are talking about, not that property has "no real value." It's not liquid.

Gates is buying farmland which makes him a feudal lord now. This alone should be prohibited by law.

OK, so we make a law that says who can and cannot buy farmland. That's going to drive the cost of farmland down to nothing, and that will hurt a lot of farmers by making their land less liquid than it was before.

Not to mention it's unconstitutional.

banks creating money out of thin air but being allowed to purchase real assets.

I suppose you're talking about fractional lending. OK, so you want to get rid of fractional lending caps? Do that and the banks will make more money out of thin air. The laws are not there to allow them to use fractional lending; they're there to stop banks from doing too much fractional lending. Banks loan money; it's what they do. They are going to lend as much money as they can, as long as they consider it a safe investment. That has led to problems in the past (like market crashes) and that's why we have caps on fractional lending.

Tighten those caps too far and you raise interest rates. Money is like any other commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand. Are you all for 20% mortgages now?

Economics is a thing. They have these things called "books" that explain it.

TheRedneck