Global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS are deliberately manufacturing this coming WW3 to further install MOVING FORWARD FINAL SOLUTION FLIPPING THE EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS from Western Hemisphere to Eastern just as they did WW2. The difference with the goals of this WW3 will be involving all of Eastern continents-----Asian, Arabic, as well as Western and Eastern Europe----AND making sure our US and CANADA is involved in civil unrest and sovereign war as well. Global banking 1% have 5% players in national media FAKE freemason/Greek religious leaders, and NGOs calling all this ARMAGEDDON
We discussed in detail how China will be enfolding all those smaller Asian nations allowed to be taken as global banking 1% FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---just as those inside China----China never minded that Thailand, Korea, Cambodia, Myanmar et al were made Foreign Economic Zones because that killed all those nations' cultural, governing, and domestic economic structures making it easier for the gorilla CHINA to simply occupy those foreign nations----as THAILAND-----making this 'king of Thailand' a remittance man his family pushed to being those poor.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THAI REAL ESTATE? MOST OF THAILAND WILL BE UNDER WATER AND THAT LAND NOT UNDER WATER WILL BE BUFFETED BY CLIMATE CHANGE SUPER-STORMS.
The king of Thailand was given $30 billion for being a royal
The official agency that managed the fortune belonging to Thailand's royal family announced Saturday that the king, who assumed the throne after his father died in…
Below as we stated last week, CAMERON is buying all that FARMLAND in Australia----farmland always being located where there is an abundance of fresh water. So, CAMERON buying this farmland to build massive FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global factories----knows he is killing the Australian continent's remaining fresh water reserves. THAT'S OK says CAMERON ----the goal is to move 99% of citizens to what will be a return to AUSTRALIAN PRISON/SLAVE LABOR COLONY. Remember our discussion some months ago about DICKEN'S CHUZZLEWIT family where that remittance man from a wealthy family comes to America and is sold SWAMPLAND called EDEN.
So, all those newly merely rich running to invest in real estate are being made to pay inflated real estate values on land knowingly being made worthless with massive environmental degradation.
How water is driving the value of Australian farms
May 1, 2018
Access to water is becoming an increasingly critical driver of the value of Australia’s farms, as rainfall patterns change and the government buys back water licenses for environment projects.
While industry experts say there are many factors that contribute to the price of rural land, having access to water especially through reliable rainfall is becoming more important for buyers.
For example, in one part of the country, land prices are up to four times higher in areas of good and dependable rainfall than in those with much less access to water, one expert says.
“There’s a big trend towards people loving the security of rain and rainfall, particularly the international corporate farms and the bigger family holdings,” says Daniel McCulloch of Ruralco Property Davidson Cameron & Co.
“For instance in dairy country in Guyra, in northern NSW, where we have higher than average rainfall, grazing land can be $4000 an acre. In country with less rainfall, they might be asking $1000 an acre.”
The rural property market is strong at the moment, with the Rural Bank revealing in its latest report that the median price in most states recorded an average annual growth rate of 3 per cent over the decade.
But at the same time, the nation’s level of rainfall is growing more volatile, with the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology reporting that our climate is continuing to warm with less rainfall in winter, albeit more intense rain when it does come, and the Federal Government is taking back more water from the agricultural sector for environmental projects.
That decreasing availability of water in most regions does impact rural prices by varying amounts, according to the season, the drought cycle, and forecasts for the future.
“That also depends on the area, and the different levels of rainfall in different areas,” says Tim Phelps, general manager of water brokers Wilks Water. “In the Riverina, for example, there’s certainly no shortage of water although it has been dry for a period of time, and dam levels are quite low.
“But if we don’t get significant rain this autumn, that will have an impact. As soon as there’s low water supply, the price of water for irrigators increases and affects the Riverina, which is Australia’s food bowl. Then that impacts the price of food, the level of employment and the farms …”
Grazier Blair Smith is currently selling his property at Mossgrove, 35 kilometres north of Inverell, on the Northern Tablelands of NSW because of illness in the family, but knows his price of $4.95 million for more than 3000 hectares reflects the decent rainfall of 756mm (30 inches) a year.
He sees his good access to water as a vital element in the sale, with all his paddocks having water via solar-operated pumps and a good dam system, with the farm remaining well watered, even through the drought of 2013-2014.
“Water is essential for livestock, a very valuable resource and we have no problem at all with it, even though there’s a slight indication that the weather patterns are changing a bit,” said Mr Smith, 77, who’s spent more than 50 years on the property, which is being sold through Rex Daley Realty.
“We’re now seeing a lot of people on the western side of the state making moves to buy properties in this neck of the woods because we’re getting more rainfall and seem less affected by climate change.”
In times of less water, dryland farmers – the majority of farms in Australia who rely on rainfall and dams on their property – are often the hardest hit.
Irrigators, who have access to water via their own water licences traded on the market, simply end up paying higher prices as a result of the fall in supply and rise in demand.
That can be significant too. The price in the early 1990s for water per megalitre stood at $200, says Phil Grahame, general manager of water brokers Ruralco. Today, it can be as high as $4000.
“There’s not as much water around as there was 12 months ago, and we’ve had an unexpectedly dry six months,” he says. “But we’re hoping for an autumn break soon and keen on a wet winter to replenish the dams.
“So properties in irrigated districts where water can be delivered can be worth more than dryland blocks where it’s not possible to deliver water. It’s a demand and supply equation.
“The bigger picture is that there’s growing demand for food but at the same time the Commonwealth has been recovering water for the environment, so there’s less to go into the productive agricultural market.”
Those high prices for water, the size of licences and the fact that water is now being treated as a commodity that’s being traded on international markets means its cost can be a lot more uncertain. “Water has become a real game-changer,” said Ruralco’s Mr McCulloch.
“Higher rainfall areas are getting more interest than lesser rainfall areas and, while people’s watering systems are getting better, you can’t cart water to stock. That’s a race to the bottom.”
It’s difficult to pin down exactly how much of a farm’s price is dependent on its available water supply, though. While agriculture, on figures from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, accounts for about three quarters of the total use of water in Australia, farmland prices are a function of many variables.
These include rainfall, location, agricultural industry, productivity, land quality, sentiment, interest rates, commodity prices and the performance of the wider economy, says agribusiness consultants Anson Advisory.
Different types of farms, of course, require varying levels of water – with cotton and almonds needing far more than other crops for example – and, in areas of good steady rainfall, access to other sources of water will affect the price of a property far less than in areas that receive minimal seasonal rain.
David Nolan of Australian prestige rural property agents Webster Nolan says, for example, that a farm with a river running though it or a creek won’t particularly see any benefit to its price if it’s located somewhere with plentiful rainfall that regularly fills its dams.
“But properties with domestic bores and irrigation bores have become more valuable, whereas years ago bore water was a given,” he says. “But now an irrigation bore licence has the same value as irrigation.
“Water is always a plus, but it’s impossible to put a price on it. There are so many different kinds of farming, and different rainfalls …”
At the same time, farms are learning how to exist using water more efficiently, and sparingly. According to the latest research from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, total water use on Australian farms decreased 3 per cent in 2015-16 to a total of 9.2 million mega litres, down 238,900 mega litres on the previous year.
The volume of water used for irrigation also fell by 3 per cent to 8.4 million mega litres, with the number of businesses irrigating dropping 18 per cent to 22,700 businesses. The biggest falls were in NSW and Victoria (both 21 per cent) driven respectively by sales of water allocations, and a decrease in the area under crop.
But water being drawn from irrigation channels or pipelines still remains the largest source for agricultural purposes, with 34 per cent, or 3.1 million mega litres, coming from this source, compared with 2.4 million mega litres from rivers, creeks or lakes, 2.35 million from groundwater, and 980,000 from dams or tanks.
Moree Real Estate’s Paul Kelly says water accessibility obviously impacts the price of a property but, “it’s hard to put a figure on it. The higher the rainfall, the more the country is worth and rainfall does drive price to a large extent, and is one of the most significant aspects, but there are too many overlying factors to be exact about it. You can’t put a percentage on it.”
We knew back in 1990s when African white farmers were sent packing by MUGABE that this was global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS claiming all of what was Southern Africa's fertile farmland with MUGABE installed as BRUTAL DICTATOR not to divide or keep all that farmland active for the 99% of ZIMBABWEAN citizens. MUGABE'S job in being that global banking 5% player was to sit on that land until the recent building of FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global factories on top of what was Southern Africa's bread basket farmland. Again, global banking 1% are seizing these farmlands for two reasons-----one, farmland is always located above and near fresh water resources that global factories guzzle dry in only a few decades----but as well the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE flipping the EARTH'S economic axis is to make these CONTINENTS ----DARK CONTINENTS---meaning void of any ability for sustainability of life or economy.
So, as MUGABE AND ZUMA are pushed out after massive sacking and looting of those nations' wealth leaving those 99% of African citizens to be pushed into global slave trade distribution system---EMPIRE ALICE says I DON'T CARE so too these global banking 1% freemason/Greek players.
We already know SOUTH AFRICA has set aside massive real estate for FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES located on prime fresh water land so these REAL ESTATE ads being called LAND REDISTRIBUTION pretending it is about addressing racial disparities-----pretending it is about rebuilding South African economies-----is NEITHER. Anyone buying these real estate in next few decades will end as our Australian remittance men-----holding land we already know will be made WORTHLESS with environmental devastation by global factories.
So, whether our US 99% of WE THE WHITE CITIZENS think being an EX-PAT in AUSTRALIA would be the way to protect wealth in a collapsing US economy---our if our US 99% WE THE BLACK CITIZENS think investing in SOUTH AFRICA real estate to do the same-----BOTH of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being made remittance men and women will end great big losers. Not only losers of wealth, but stranded on what MOVING FORWARD is trying as hard as they can to make DARK CONTINENTS----no ability for sustainable living for any 99% of citizens black, white, and brown.
These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD for only the global 1% have installed all these policies ----it is not just those 5% global banking 1% freemason/Greeks today. THEY KNOW what ONE WORLD will look like!
May 21, 2016 / 8:52 AM / 2 years ago
South Africa to limit farm sizes to speed land redistribution
KRUGER NATIONAL PARK, South Africa (Reuters) - South Africa’s government is planning to impose limits on farm sizes to free up parcels of land to hand over to blacks, a minister said on Saturday, giving an insight into the workings of a divisive redistribution scheme.
A farmer inspects the soil ahead of planting at a maize field in Wesselsbron, a small maize farming town in the Free State province of South Africa, January 13, 2016. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko/File PhotoGugile Nkwinti, the minister of rural development and land reform, told Reuters the government was planning to set a range of limits - from a 1,000-hectare (2,470-acre) “small-scale” farm, up to the largest allowed, at 12,000 hectares.
“If you are a small-scale farm and have 1,400 HA, we will buy the 400, and leave you with your 1,000. We will buy the extra and redistribute it to black people,” the minister said.
South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), facing local elections in August, has promised to speed up plans to redistribute land which remains predominantly in white hands two decades after the end of apartheid.
Some economists and farming groups have said the proposals could hit investment and production at a time when South Africa is emerging from a major drought - pointing to the economic damage linked to farm seizures in neighboring Zimbabwe.
They have also complained about a lack of clarity on how it will all work.
Setting out the farm size limits and specifically linking them to the redistribution scheme may further alarm owners, particularly of smaller plots.
But the government says the redistribution process needs to be accelerated, to rectify past wrongs and provide opportunities to the previously excluded, and has repeatedly said it will stick to the law and not follow Zimbabwe’s example.
“In South Africa you have a concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few people. That is something we have to correct,” Nkwinti said before a ceremony in Kruger National Park where President Jacob Zuma handed over 84 million rand ($5.4 million) in compensation to black communities evicted decades ago.
Experts estimate about 8 million hectares of farmland have been transferred to black owners since the end of apartheid, 8 to 10 percent of the land in white hands in 1994 and only a third of the ANC’s long-running 30 percent target.
The party has said it will speed up the process with a bill going through parliament allowing the state to expropriate land without the owner’s consent.
Several black communities had land claims on the 2-million hectare Kruger Park because they were removed after the Native Land Act of 1913, which consigned South Africa’s black majority to 13 percent of the country’s territory.
But the government wants to keep the Kruger, a major tourist draw and home to many animal species, intact, so its policy is to compensate those with claims on it through cash instead of allowing them to resettle in the park’s boundaries.
Perry Sambo, a 63-year-old school teacher who is one of the claimants being paid, said his parents had been removed from Kruger before he was born.
“It was very difficult. Transport was very scarce and they did not get any assistance in what they wanted to carry. And some of their belongs they had to leave because they could not carry everything. They lost also cattle on the way that were eaten by lions,” he told Reuters.
Our US national media tells us that the problems with the 99% of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS in Central America is nearly solved because after all FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES having been installed will make an environmental mess of these LATIN AMERICAN nations leaving no 99% sustainability after environmental devastation and use of all fresh water for global factories.
Here we see global banking 1% and OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS doing the same to all of Guatemala's natural resources as was done to our US MID-WEST/WEST COAST---all for agriculture products that will be thrown into GLOBAL MARKETS.
As national media pretends TRUMP is building that WALL to keep 99% of LATIN AMERICAN immigrants OUT of America------that WALL is being built as THE WALL between EAST AND WEST GERMANY in STALINIST days----to keep global labor pool 99% and any US citizens black, white, and brown remaining in US under far-right, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE from escaping.
The Latin American immigrant families caught at US border in CA having children sent to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as slave labor while those families are being sent back to the same global factories in Mexico, Central America to be thrown into global slave trade distribution system
Guatemala farmers losing their land to Europe's demand for biofuels
Indigenous smallholder farmers are being violently evicted as companies move in to satisfy Europe's hunger for biofuels
Global development is supported by
John Vidal, environment editor
Thu 5 Jul 2012 13.29 EDT
Below we see WESTERN EUROPE after these few decades of what far-right wing global banking GREEN CORPORATION GREEN REVOLUTION pretending to be real environmentalism was always the OPPOSITE---never meant to be green or environmental. We have in Maryland these same GREENING policies geared at sequestering land for industrial development calling is GREEN SUSTAINABILITY. Our 99% of European farming citizens are passionate about their land----lost over these few decades under the guise of global banking 1% GREEN SUSTAINABILITY now that land being taken to install FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES-----global factories.
'The message that, after hard-won reform, the CAP is now greener is really appealing to society, so it’s particularly unfortunate that our analysis indicates that it is nothing of the sort. It’s important that national governments recognise that our evidence-based analysis indicates a shortfall between rhetoric and reality, and do what they can in their own power to improve matters'.
Calling these policies a failure TODAY-----when REAL left social progressives have shouted against all this for these few decades ---shows FAKE ENVIRONMENTALISM-----using that EVIDENCE-BASED DATA knowing the goals are to make Western Europe into a wasteland of FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE massive global factories.
This is yet another ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT far-right wing global banking 1% ACADEMIC media pretending to be 99% populist
Who we are
The Conversation US arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse – and recognition of the vital role that academic experts can play in the public arena.
Independent and not-for-profit, it is part of a global network of newsrooms first launched in Australia in 2011. The Conversation began its US operations in 2014, and now also publishes in Canada, the UK, France, Indonesia and Africa, as well as Australia.
The Conversation’s mission is particularly resonant in the U.S., where people universally sense that the country’s social fabric is strained and the common ground people share is shrinking'.
The ‘greening’ of Europe’s farms has been a failure
June 12, 2014 12.55am EDT THE CONVERSATION
The European policies designed to encourage a more biodiverse environment that is better able to support wildlife and plants are failing. In fact, our analysis of the reforms designed to “green” the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) suggests they neither encourage greater wildlife abundance nor provide adequate protection for vulnerable habitats such as grasslands.
Finally adopted in March, the long process of reforming the CAP was supposed to require farmers to “observe practices beneficial to the climate and environment” in order to qualify for some of their direct payment subsidies, as well as offering pro-environmental farm stewardship as a voluntary step.
While we depend upon the food grown in agricultural fields we also benefit from the environment to which they are a part, from the wildlife such as the iconic skylarks lauded by Vaughan Williams, or the “green and pleasant land” of a traditional, diverse rural landscape. Land given over to agriculture should produce more than just food and profits, but things of a wider worth to society.
The reformed CAP is an effort to recognise that we should pay farmers to produce both. Much of Northwest Europe’s farmland is now monotonous, monocrop farmland, degraded and denuded of its wildlife. Eastern Europe’s more traditional landscapes remain wildlife rich, and the policies’ green measures should help protect them, while encouraging farm modernisation. This is the aim but not, we discovered, the reality.
Shades of green
In the UK, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA)’s code on environmental claims says words such as “greener” can be justified if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer’s previous product, and the basis of the comparison is clear. Let’s apply this logic to the CAP reform.
As part of a team of environmental and farming experts from across the EU, we analysed the “greening” credentials of the new CAP relative to the old one. Our results, published in the journal Science, reveal that, alarmingly, the reformed CAP fails the ASA test: there is no basis for claiming that it is greener.
While many farmers across Europe have in the past volunteered to receive payments for the so-called “agri-environment schemes”, some of which have provided environmental benefits, this budget has shrunk by almost 20%. For the reformed CAP to increase its environmental benefit overall, any benefits lost as a result would have to first be replaced.
The reformed CAP introduces three measures: Ecological Focus Areas, in which 5% of agricultural land is managed to provide habitat for wildlife. Maintaining 95% of permanent grasslands, home to many wildflowers and the insects and birds they support, from being ploughed into fields. And the requirement to grow at least three crops on arable farms over 30 hectares in order to generate a more diverse landscape.
Not living up to expectations
Ecological Focus Areas will only work if they provide the right habitat for wildlife in the right place. But the scheme doesn’t include those interventions known to help wildlife, such as flowers planted for pollinators, or plots for ground-nesting birds.
And in any case, the payment rests on simply having them, rather than managing them in the right way or in the right place to make a difference. Management is critical to making any real difference – hedgerows, for example, are not much good for birds and insects if they are cut short every year and hardly allowed to flower. Fallow land is poor for wildlife if it is sprayed with herbicide in late spring to prevent weeds colonising crops.
The measure designed to protect permanent grassland, doesn’t. A farmer can continue to collect the subsidy if they convert a patch of flower-rich meadow into an intensively-managed improved pasture field, because it is technically still “grassland”. If taken up, the 5% reduction allowable under the scheme will over the six-year lifespan of the current CAP represent more than double the rate of loss of permanent grassland that occurred between 1993 and 2011, when just over 6% of Europe’s grasslands were lost.
As for the three crop rule, there is no evidence that having three crops, rather than two or one, provides any environmental or diversity benefit. It entirely depends on which crops are planted, and how they are managed – for example, what pesticides are used and when. Even now in half of EU member states the average arable farm already has four or five crops, so requiring three will not provide any additional environmental benefits.
On top of it all, most European farmers and about half the farmed area are in any case exempt from Ecological Focus Areas and minimum crop diversity, because they don’t apply to livestock farms or small arable farms.
The message that, after hard-won reform, the CAP is now greener is really appealing to society, so it’s particularly unfortunate that our analysis indicates that it is nothing of the sort. It’s important that national governments recognise that our evidence-based analysis indicates a shortfall between rhetoric and reality, and do what they can in their own power to improve matters.
It is also up to us, as citizens and consumers, to recognise that relying on food to be cheap and plentiful implies that sustainable farming will take second place. If we don’t like this choice, it’s up to us to voice it.
Here is the exact same global banking 1% ONE WORLD for only the global 1% FAKE GREEN SUSTAINABILITY continuing to MOVE FORWARD telling our 99% of citizens in MARYLAND---this is GREEN DEVELOPMENT----THIS IS GREEN SUSTAINABILITY when it is all designed to capture more and more and more of Maryland real estate to install FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL FACTORIES AND CAMPUSES----all that massive road and railway to PORT OF BALTIMORE.
University of Maryland COLLEGE PARK is a raging global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS corporate campus-----needing to be taken back to being PUBLIC UNIVERSITY working for PUBLIC INTEREST.
'John B. Colvin to Thomas Jefferson, February 28, 1810'
'The donation from John B. Colvin and his wife, Karen, will be used to create the Colvin Institute of Real Estate Development in Maryland's School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation'.
No one has been the better FAKE GREEN SUSTAINABILITY set-aside of real estate in Maryland then those GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----here in Maryland that has been EHLICH/O'MALLEY/HOGAN.
As we discuss often---MARYLAND'S fresh water aquifers are almost all drained from farming made global market----and not local and domestic. MOVING FORWARD will have no fresh water inside a MARYLAND/PA/VIRGINIA FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE------
COLVIN here in Maryland is a remittance man-------he does what global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS tell him and his family in near future will be UNDER THE BUS.
All of Maryland's fresh water aquifers nearly empty----MOVING FORWARD installation of global factories ASSURES no fresh water in this mid-Atlantic region. DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING say all these global banking 5% freemason/Greek players when indeed they knew MOVING FORWARD had these goals -----these 5% players black, white, and brown citizens simply DON'T CARE as EMPIRE ALICE tells them.
(gas company) - Wikipedia
Coordinates. Questar Corporation is a natural gas-focused energy company based in Salt Lake City, Utah in the Rocky Mountains.Questar's three major lines of business — retail gas distribution, interstate gas transportation and gas production — are conducted through its principal subsidiaries: Questar Gas, Questar Pipeline and Wexpro'.
Commercial Real Estate
Developer gives $3M to launch 'green' real estate program at University of Maryland
By Ryan Sharrow – Staff
Feb 5, 2008, 2:28pm EST Updated Feb 5, 2008, 2:28pm A Baltimore developer has donated $3 million to become the namesake of a new "green" real estate program at the University of Maryland's flagship College Park campus.
The donation from John B. Colvin and his wife, Karen, will be used to create the Colvin Institute of Real Estate Development in Maryland's School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. The donation will be used to create a new track in the program focusing on green design, sustainable development and energy financing.
Colvin, a Maryland graduate, is a principal at Baltimore-based real estate development Questar.
The new institute will be the academic home for the university's master's degree in real estate development track.
"The rules of the game are changing very quickly, and both the industry and higher education need to adapt," Colvin said in a news release.
The gift from Colvin is the largest in the history of Maryland's School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.
The school's real estate development program has quickly expanded since launching in 2006. More than 75 students are currently enrolled in the program, up from a class of 12 in the fall of 2006, according to the school.
The university is in the midst of its latest capital campaign, dubbed "Great Expectations, the Campaign for Maryland." The school had raised $466 million as of January, nearly half of the $1 billion goal it hopes to hit by 2011.
Colvin is a senior fellow in the University of Maryland Executive Programs at the School of Public Policy.
Anyone investing in real estate today in Maryland as other US states at a time when MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES gives power of EMINENT DOMAIN to any global corporation under the guise of economic development----will be great big losers soon enough. Our Maryland Attorney General FROSH made all of Maryland a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE pretending SANCTUARY STATES/CITIES were about protecting our 99% of global labor pool new immigrants when it always had a goal of making all real estate in Maryland under control of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'OUR WORLD UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY
PEACE & SECURITY
Below we see the mouth-piece of WORLD BANK UNITED NATIONS----you know, those ONE WORLD for only the global 1% global media and NGOs-----we shared that article from GUATEMALA and that real estate being taken for FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global factories being told all this was GREENING-----John Vidal of UK THE GUARDIAN is of course paid by BILL GATES to create FAKE greening and environmental media.
Here we see the OUR WORLD OUR REVOLUTION motto in MOVING FORWARD-------
OUR WORLD UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY
PEACE & SECURITY
John Vidal is the Guardian’s environment editor. He joined the paper in 1995 after working for Agence France Presse, North Wales Newspapers and the Cumberland News. He is the author of McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial (1998) and has contributed chapters to books on topics such as the Gulf war, new Europe and development.
We will end for today that discussion of goals in real estate of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES deliberately targeting all of what would be fresh water and fertile farm land in each nation designated to being DARK CONTINENTS----which is of course including Western Europe and THE AMERICAS-----we saw Central America literally in lock-down control by WORLD BANK IMF-----so too US and Canada in MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and those 5% global banking freemason/Greeks living for today could care less about what the future for children and grandchildren will look like.
Here again is what should have been designated as REAL GREEN environmental sustainability for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE----those northern mid-west and eastern border states with CANADA-----all real estate being tied to the worst of global factories having all intentions of draining fresh water aquifers dry along with our GREAT LAKES fresh water.
Remember, the FINAL SOLUTION OF MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD flipping the EARTH'S economic axis is having only north-eastern European regions with plenty of natural resources in fertile land, fresh water, and enough mineral, ore, and timber for sustainability set aside for only the global 1%----don't knock on those SECRET GARDEN DOORS 5% freemason/Greek players ---those secret knocks---secret hand shakes----all those funny hats will be DISAPPEARING.
Investing in any real estate in these slated for massive industrial FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will have that land either environmentally devastated as MOVING FORWARD here in Maryland---or will see that land seized by EMINENT DOMAIN by any global corporations saying it needs it for profit.
Foxconn seeks free-trade zone status for Mount Pleasant plant
By Sean Ryan – Reporter, Milwaukee Business Journal
Dec 20, 2017, 6:07pm
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., also known as Foxconn, is planning to invest up to $10 billion on a plant in Mount Pleasant that could have as many as 13,000 employees.
Foxconn Technology Group could get breaks on duty payments for items it imports to Mount Pleasant to make LCD screens under a pending application to the federal government.
Please Google this article to see a great MAP telling us farmland being lost due to development vs not development-driven. We see all of MARYLAND/VIRGINIA/PA being designated as lost farming land due to global industrial development----but out west and mid-west where lost farmland is not tagged as development-related-----what we know is caused by two failed development policies-----all those fresh water aquifers have been drained----or all that land is designated for FOSSIL FUEL ----FRACKING, CRUDE OIL/TAR SAND development.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA working to achieve the KISSINGER ----CONTROL THE FOOD CONTROL THE ENERGY TO CONTROL 99% OF CITIZENS----have always had the goal of taking US to DARK CONTINENT status working for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA----TRIBE OF JUDAH-----
We can be sure as MOVING FORWARD Trump kills all of US Federal safety net programs to address OBAMA'S super-duper US TREASURY bond and state municipal bond FRAUDS------our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens will be sold a BILL OF GOODS----farmland in these soon to be threatened FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES just as in Africa and Australia.
Western Europe sadly sits on land having always been short of underground fresh water aquifers-----those ALPS melting steadily being a great resource of fresh water will be gone very soon as too our Western mountain glaciers.
How are global banking 1% neo-liberals and neo-cons in Europe addressing these threats to fertile farmland ------they are super-duper sizing building FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global factories in each European nation.
WHEN OUR US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE SEE ALL THIS AS GOALS INSTALLED THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA INTENDING TO MAKE US AND CANADA A 'DARK CONTINENT' THEN WE STOP LISTENING TO ALL THAT FAKE LOCAL GLOBAL BANKING TALKING POINTS FROM ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party)
"DFL" redirects here. For other uses, see DFL (disambiguation).
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party
The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) is a socially liberal political party in the U.S. state of Minnesota. It is affiliated with the U.S. Democratic Party. Formed by a merger of the Minnesota Democratic Party and the social democratic Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party in 1944, the DFL is one of only two state Democratic party affiliates of a different name (the other being the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party).
Then global banking 1% come back in US media to blame all those SOCIAL LIBERALS for these SHIP OF FOOL policies. These few decades REAL SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES were shouting loudly against these fake farm/labor far-right wing candidates.
Here is today's DAYTON STATS------how could any 99% of Democratic voters vote for a graduate of FAR-RIGHT WING BUSH NEO-CON global hedge fund IVY LEAGUES YALE UNIVERSITY as a FARMER-----LABOR politician--------the answer is -----those 99% of Democratic voters did not vote for DAYTON---these few decades have had RIGGED AND FRAUDULENT STATE ELECTIONS..................these are REMITTANCE MEN who will lose everything killing the future for their families
Bruce Dayton (Father)
Gwendolyn Brandt (Mother)
Relatives George Dayton (Great-grandfather)
Residence Governor's Residence
Education Yale University (BA)
Website Government website
Farming on the Edge
The nation's best farmland in the path of development.
35 years ago, visionary farmland conservationists founded American Farmland Trust.
This was GREEN REVOLUTION KISSINGER CONTROLLING FOOD GLOBAL BIG AG
Our innovative policies and programs – and staff around the country – lead a national movement to save the land, soil, water and people needed to feed America. And the world.
Almost 20 years ago, we released the groundbreaking report, Farming on the Edge, which vividly demonstrated how sprawling development was consuming America's highest quality farmland in key regions of the country.
At the time of its release in 1997, and when it was updated in 2002, the Farming on the Edge report was a wake up call to people all over the country about how poorly planned development and urban sprawl were destroying our nation's most productive farmland.
Now in 2015, we are embarking on an updated and improved version of Farming on the Edge. Called "The State of America's Farmland," it will be a national tool for advancing the cause of America's farmers and farmland, and the most comprehensive national snapshot of farmland conservation ever created.
Be the first to know as results from this critical project become available – sign up for our monthly e-newsletter The Dirt. For a look back at the results from our last survey of farmland in the path of development, including the 20 most imperiled states, check out the results below.
Twenty States Losing the Most Prime Farmland 1992-1997
- Texas Map:
Agriculture is the second largest industry in Texas and the nation's second-leading agricultural-producing state. The sale of cattle and calves accounts for 51 percent of all agricultural sales, followed by greenhouse and nursery production, cotton, broilers and milk. Texas is the number one state in baled hay and wool production. The average farm is 676 acres.
- Ohio Map:
Ohio has 80,000 farms, averaging 186 acres each. Ohio produces more eggs and more Swiss cheese than any other state. They are ranked number two in sherbet, three in tomatoes, four in winter wheat and five in sweet corn. Because of the accelerated loss of farmland, Ohio is committed to addressing the issue of farmland preservation head-on. The governor appointed a task force in 1996 and started implementing most of its recommendations in 1997.
- Georgia Map:
More peanuts, pecans and poultry are grown in Georgia than in any other state. Georgia also ranks second in acres of cotton and rye and third in peaches and fresh market tomatoes. Poultry broilers continue to rank as Georgia's number one cash receipts commodity, representing 45 percent of the total cash receipts from sales of farm products. The average farm is 265 acres.
- North Carolina Map:
Agriculture is North Carolina's number one industry, accounting for nearly one quarter of the state's income, 30 percent of the acreage and 22 percent of the work force. It is one of the most diversified agriculture states in the nation, growing over 80 commodities. North Carolina produces more tobacco and sweet potatoes than any other state and ranks second in the production of hogs, turkeys, Christmas trees and trout. There are 57,000 farms and the average farm is 161 acres.
- Illinois Map:
Illinois is second only to Iowa in corn and soybean production and fourth in the production of hogs. With over 1,500 kinds of soil types, Illinois also grows lesser known specialty crops such as amaranth, apples, bell peppers, blueberries, broccoli, buckwheat, canola, grain sorghum, herbs, potatoes, rye, snap beans, sod, strawberries, sweet corn, tomatoes, and winter wheat. The average farm is 355 acres.
- Pennsylvania Map:
Pennsylvania is the third-leading producer of concord grapes and the fourth-leading producer in corn for silage, freestone peaches and Niagara grapes in the country. The state also has a huge livestock production consisting of chicken, hogs, cattle, ewes and sheep. The state has a nation-leading farmland preservation program through the purchase of development rights. The state's average farm size is 158 acres.
- Indiana Map:
Indiana's main commodities are corn, soybeans, hogs and pigs, poultry and poultry products, and cattle and calves. Indiana has the 4th largest crop area for soybeans and 5th for corn. The state is second only to California in tomatoes for processing and ice cream production. The average farm size is 261 acres, up by 5 percent from 249 acres in 1992.
- Tennessee Map:
Tennessee is agriculturally diverse, dominated by farming and forestry, and half of the state's land area in farms. The top five commodities in terms of sales are cattle and calves, poultry and poultry products, soybeans, nursery and green house crops, and dairy products. Tennessee's full time farms decreased slightly by seven percent from 1992 to 1997 but its production market value ($28,358) shot up by an average of 10 percent per farm. The average farm size is 145 acres.
- Michigan Map:
Michigan grows more beans (black, cranberry, red kidney and navy), blueberries, tart cherries, cucumbers, flowering hanging baskets, geraniums, Niagara grapes, hosta, and impatiens then any other state. It is the second leading producer of celery and the third leading producer of apples, asparagus, snap beans, carrots, Concord grapes and radishes. However, milk, soybeans, corn, cattle, hogs, annual bedding plants and woody ornamentals provide the highest cash receipts. The average farm is 215 acres.
- Alabama Map:
Alabama is very much diversified in farming. When it comes to agricultural products and annual revenues, traditional crops such as cotton, potatoes and peanuts are way below poultry, forestry and horticulture. Poultry and egg sale, the 4th in the nation, is the number one revenue producer, bringing in $2 billion annually. There are more than 1,000 greenhouses, nursery and sod farms spread across more than 12 million square feet of space. The 1997 average farm size is 210 acres.
- Virginia Map:
Agriculture is Virginia's top industry and farms cover 34 percent of the state. The state grows traditional crops such as milk, poultry, beef and soybeans; uniquely southern crops like cotton, peanuts and tobacco; and newer commodities such as farm-raised fish and nursery/landscaping products. Virginia ranks in the top 10 or 15 producing states for many commodities. The average farm is 180 acres.
- Wisconsin Map:
Wisconsin leads in a number of agricultural crops. The state earns the second largest in dairy products as well as ducks, geese and poultry sold. It has the biggest acreage of corn for silage and the second for oats. Wisconsin gets about half of its total receipts from dairy products. Land in farms, the average farm size, and full time farms decreased between 1992 and 1997 in Wisconsin. The average farm size is 227 acres.
- New York: About 25 percent of the state's land area produce a variety of crops. Milk is New York's leading agricultural product, followed by nursery and greenhouse crops, vegetables, sweet corn and melons. New York is the second leading producer of apples and maple syrup and the third leading producer of dairy products, grapes, sweet corn, cauliflower and cabbage. The average farm is 228 acres.
- South Carolina Map:
Agricultural sales in the states are brought in mainly by poultry and poultry products, tobacco (third in the country), nursery and greenhouse crops, cotton and cattle and calves. It is the second biggest producer, next to California, of Freestone peaches, mainly in Palmetto State. Cotton has the largest percentage of irrigated acreage followed by corn, land in vegetables and orchards, and soybeans. Individuals and families mostly owned the state's farms. The average farm size is 228 acres.
- California Map:
The state has been the leader in U.S. agricultural production for more than 50 years. Its 87,500 farms constitute about four percent of the country's total. Eight of the nation's top 10 producing counties are in the state. The Golden State dominates the dairy industry with 19 percent of the national milk receipts, and grows more than half of the country's fruits, nuts and vegetables. California is also the leading producer of all grape varieties and accounted for 92 percent of grape production in 2000. Equally important, it is the country's number one agricultural exporter. Per farm average market value of products sold is $310,718. The average farm size is 374 acres.
- Mississippi Map:
Mississippi ranks fourth in cotton and sweet potato production. More than half of its receipts in 1997 were brought in by cotton and cottonseed and poultry and poultry products. The state also produces rice, pecans, soybeans, sorghum, wheat and corn. Tomatoes and watermelons are some of the vegetables grown there. It is number one in aquaculture. In terms of market value of agricultural products sold, the per farm average is $99,859. The average farm size is 323 acres.
- Louisiana Map:
Louisiana's top agricultural products in terms of sales are potatoes, peanuts, cotton, poultry and poultry products, soybeans, rye, drybeans and other grains. It also grows sugarcane, strawberries, pecans and Perique tobacco. The state ranks 2nd in crop acreage for rice and 7th in cotton. The average farm size is 331 acres, jumping eight percent from 306 in 1992. Market value of products sold per farm in 1997 was $85,265.
- Kentucky Map:
Kentucky's top agriculture commodities are tobacco, cattle, horses, soybeans and corn for grain. Farmland accounts for 54 percent of total acreage in the state. Tied with Tennessee, it ranks fourth in the number of farms behind Texas, Missouri and Iowa. Its broiler industry has expanded with several new processing plants in recent years. Per farm 1997 average of products sold is $37,247. The 1997 average farm size is 162 acres, and increase of seven percent between 1992 and 1997.
- Arkansas Map:
Arkansas, a producer as well as an exporter of agricultural products, is the number one in the country in terms of poultry and poultry products sales in 1997, as well as of rice, rye, drybeans and other grains. In 2000 the state ranked 10th in agricultural exports with an estimated amount of $1.4 billion. Its broiler inventory is the biggest in the U.S. The state is also first in acres of rice and fifth largest cotton producer. The 1997 average size of farm is 318 acres.
- Minnesota Map:
Corn, hogs, soybeans, dairy and poultry products are the sources of agricultural cash receipts for Minnesota. Animal agriculture is important in the state and as such leads the country in inventory and sale of turkeys. It has the biggest acreage for sugar beets and leads in sugar beet and green peas production. It is the third in terms of hogs and pigs sold and crop area for soybeans. Minnesota is second only to North Dakota in producing spring wheat, oats and canola. The average farm is 354 acres.
If we read AMERICAN FARMLAND website we might believe it is a NGO with goals of protecting US farmland-----wanting to stop bad industrial development and we are sure this AMERICAN FARMLAND no doubt receives GREEN BENEFIT FUNDING AND TAX CREDITS pretending to be working for US green sustainability all while being made a global billion dollar land manager here we see merging with another.....called FARMLAND PARTNERS.
These global corporations owned by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS calling themselves FARMLAND management corporations are indeed buying all of US FARMLAND just as CAMERON in AUSTRALIA ----or ZUMA/MAGABE in Africa having all these few decades of FAKE GREEN SUSTAINABILITY LAND MANAGEMENT had goals of FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE GLOBAL FACTORIES taking that farmland.
LOOK AT THAT STOCK PRICE-----MAN, OUR 99% WE THE PEOPLE BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS GETTING A HUNDRED OR SO IN ANNUAL DIVIDEND PAYMENTS SAY-----SHOW ME THE MONEY WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE FUTURE BRINGS.
All of US pension, 401K retirement funds invested in these global land management corporations stock and muni funds called these global corporations GREEN BENEFIT---SOCIAL BENEFIT corporations.
Farmland Partners to Merge With American Farmland
9/12/2016 | By
. said Sept. 12 that it will acquire. (NYSE: AFCO) in a stock-for-stock deal.
Farmland Partners’ Paul Pittman will continue as chairman and CEO of the new company, which will own more than $850 million of U.S. farmland assets spanning 133,000 acres.
The transaction is expected to contribute approximately $16 million of revenue in 2016, increasing Farmland Partners’ total revenue from $26 million to approximately $42 million.
The terms of the deal state that each share of American Farmland common stock and each American Farmland operating partnership unit will be converted into the right to receive 0.7417 shares or units of newly issued Farmland Partners common stock or units. Based on Farmland Partners’ closing share price of $11.10 on Sept. 9, American Farmland shares would be valued at $8.23.
Following the merger, former Farmland Partners equity holders will hold approximately 65 percent of the merged company, and former American Farmland equity holders will hold the remaining 35 percent.
In a conference call, Pittman said the merger will significantly increase Farmland Partners’ diversification on a crop and geographic basis and will reduce overall operating costs. He described the merger as a step toward the goal of “aggressively” growing the company. He added that the company expects to continue to acquire farmland in core farming regions.
The combined company projects to have a fully diluted market capitalization of approximately $400 million. The size and scale of the new company should provide greater access to global investors targeting investments in U.S. farmland assets, according to Pittman.
David Rodgers, a senior analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said Farmland Partners is expected to operate its combined portfolio more efficiently, “and with added scale, we think that the combined company will offer investors a substantially more effective way to invest in farmland long term.”
Once combined, the portfolio is expected to consist of approximately 75 percent row crop farmland and 25 percent specialty and permanent crops, based on the value of the assets.
OF COURSE CHINA WILL ATTAIN AMERICAN FARMS AND FARMLAND------US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ARE MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA!
Since our 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE are allowing the designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE to continue even as it is illegal -----unconstitutional ----and a conspiracy against our own US sovereignty ------these kinds of deals involving US real estate especially our US farmland slated to be environmentally devastated just as in China------will MOVE FORWARD with US national media pretending Congress or Trump is fighting all this.
When we shout to our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens how our US pensions and 401Ks are sending our savings and wealth to promote the building of global corporate structures having a goal of KILLING OUR US 99% of citizens and our new immigrant citizens----LITERALLY----we say DIVEST all our US pensions and 401Ks NOW-----rather than limp along seeing these pension/401K platforms eaten entirely with fraud and corruption in investment. If our US WE THE PEOPLE are allowing our own wealth assets to promote these MADE IN CHINA MADE IN AMERICA----if we are allowing these global corporations to be touted as JOB CREATORS in our local communities-----WE ARE KILLING THE FUTURE for our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
These kinds of public policy targeting our US real estate are MOVING FORWARD while US national media plays the CLOWN TRUMP CARD-----the RUSSIA----RUSSIA---CHINA TRUMP CARD-----when all those Russian, Chinese global 1% are all on the same team OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Who knows none of this is about GREEN SUSTAINABILITY in farmland? Those dastardly global banking 5% freemason/Greek players pretending to be US Republicans or US Democrats or third party GREEN PARTY or OUR REVOLUTION for only the global 1% Clinton neo-liberals morphing into far-right wing ONE WORLD LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS.
Saudi Arabia Is Buying Up American Farmland To Export ...www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-17/saudi-arabia... Saudi Arabia Is Buying Up American Farmland To Export Agricultural Products Back Home. ... This is where they are buying the farmland for dairy farms as well as ...
China Is Making a Major Play for American Farms and Farmland
Companies backed by the Chinese government are making Big Ag acquisitions in the U.S.
Feb 22, 2016· 8 MIN READ
Tove Danovich is a journalist based in Portland, Oregon
The American farmer is revered in our culture. He—the mythical American farmer is invariably a man—is in many ways a professional embodiment of values, such as individualism and hard work, that are considered part of the national identity. With their backbreaking work, farmers settled the growing West through the 1862 Homestead Act. It’s not a stretch to say that farmers, riding the wave of manifest destiny, built the United States. Today, they continue to feed it.
But the days when anyone could pick up a pitchfork and become a farmer are long gone. Farmland can cost an average of $4,000 per acre in the United States, and most farms have roughly 1,100 acres. Some of the biggest crops, such as corn and alfalfa, aren’t even grown to feed people. Thanks to globalization, food grown in the Midwest might end up feeding someone half a world away.
In an effort to cut out the middleman, foreign buyers are trying to circumvent the American farmer. Instead of buying food from farmers who work their own land, some foreign buyers want to own and operate these American farms themselves—as well as the livestock barns and slaughterhouses. Between the 2013 purchase of pork processor Smithfield by a Chinese holding company and ChemChina’s pending $43 billion offer for the agrichemical company Syngenta, the world’s most populous country is making a major play to buy the proverbial American farm—and U.S. politicians are lending a helping hand.
On Feb. 11, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts signed L.B. 176 into law, reversing a 1999 law that prevented meatpackers from owning livestock for more than five days prior to slaughter. Pork processors like Smithfield, which owns a plant employing more than 2,000 in Crete, Nebraska, will soon be able to vertically integrate their operations. Instead of buying hogs from numerous independent farmers, farmers will contract with processors like Smithfield for the privilege of selling their pork.
It’s a big concern for farmers who worry the pork industry will be swallowed up by contract farming, like the chicken industry. This is one area where pork producers don’t want to be “the other white meat.” Chicken “growers” are paid to raise the birds on their land as well as pay for expensive poultry houses, labor, and maintenance. But it’s the major poultry companies who own the chickens—as well as the hatcheries, slaughterhouses, and feed.
That the Nebraska pork industry is poised for takeover by contract farming isn’t that big of a deal in itself. Most other Midwestern states long ago repealed their own packer bans and have seen pork production climb as Nebraska’s slipped. Nebraska was the last holdout. Though China can benefit from making the state an extension of its food supply, Nebraska legislators are courting China as an important trading partner too. As the executive director of the Nebraska Pork Producers Association noted, the state has the competitive advantage of being the Midwest hog producer closest geographically not just to West Coast markets but to the Pacific Rim as well. But while playing with China could be an economic boon to some in the state, the benefits may not translate to individual farmers. It could also damage U.S. agriculture, food security, and the environment as well.
China is in dire need of both food and farms.
OH, REALLY???? CHINA BEFORE MAO WAS NOTHING BUT SMALL FARMERS AND FARMLAND---WHERE DID ALL THAT GO?
While the country looks huge on a map, only 11 percent of Chinese land can be farmed. Add that to the huge population, and you have a recipe for food-security disaster. “Food security, the ability to ensure ample and affordable supplies of food for all, is a political headache for leaders in Beijing, who are all too aware that staying in power means keeping rice bowls filled,” Keith Johnson wrote recently in Foreign Policy.
More than 40 percent of China’s existing arable land has been degraded by pollution, acidification, and reduced fertility, China’s official news agency, Xinhua, reported in 2014.
OH, YOU MEAN THE FARMLAND MAO COLLECTIZED TO CREATE MASSIVE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ARE THAT 40 % ARABLE LAND DESTROYED BY GLOBAL FACTORIES ---NOW WANTING TO DO THE SAME IN US?
Chinese researchers have estimated a need for a 30-percent increase in rice-harvest productivity to feed the population. China’s Number One Central Document, an annual policy blueprint of sorts, has focused on agriculture, rural development, and farmers 13 times since 2000, according to Xinhua.
As a result, China is investing in the best agricultural technology and best farmland—regardless of where it lies—to keep its people fed. The United States, with six times more arable land per capita, is the perfect contract farmer.
YOU MEAN CHINA IS PRETENDING TO BUY FARMLAND FOR FARMING WHEN THE GOAL IS US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES AND GLOBAL CORPORATE FACTORIES.
“An acquisition like Syngenta by ChemChina really allows them [China] to have this major foothold in feed production as well,” said Ted Genoways, author of The Chain: Farm, Factory, and the Fate of Our Food. “Suddenly you’re looking at the Chinese government being one of the largest players in American agriculture.”
The passage of L.B. 176 was not just a happenstance blessing for Smithfield. The company spent $46,222 lobbying Nebraska legislators in the first three quarters of 2015, according to Fortune. Reporter Leah Douglas wrote that in 2015, Smithfield gave more than $12,000 to 19 state senators who were voting on L.B. 176. All but one voted in favor of the bill.
Shaunghui, a private Chinese meat-processing company, purchased Smithfield for 30 percent over its market value. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who was on the committee that reviewed the deal, noted during the hearings, “I firmly believe that economic security is part of our national security and that it should be considered when our government reviews foreign investment into the United States.” Stabenow called the Smithfield purchase “precedent-setting,” as it was the largest purchase of a U.S. company by a Chinese firm. Furthermore, it was the first acquisition of a major American food company by a Chinese business.
During the hearing, both lawmakers and the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission presented concerns that the Chinese government was backing the deal. But Smithfield CEO Larry Pope offered assurances that there was no connection between Shaunghui and the Chinese government. The U.S. Treasury Department allowed the purchase to go forward. Yet, just a year later, the Center for Investigative Reporting discovered that the Chinese government did have a connection to Shaunghui. The Communist Party supported the Smithfield purchase with “preferential policy, as well as investment,” Zhang Taixi, the government-appointed president of WH Group (the corporate name Shaunghui adopted in 2014), told CIR.
But the Syngenta deal is not Smithfield 2.0—not exactly. Syngenta is a Swiss company, and in many ways, the merger may not seem all that different from DuPont and Dow’s recently announced coupling. “The big question around Syngenta and ChemChina is that ChemChina isn’t just a Chinese company—it’s a Chinese-government-owned company,” said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union. This is not the merger of two companies but the second-most-powerful nation in the world seeking to put its might behind one corporation. Johnson added that it was unclear whether China could be expected to behave in an “economically predictable fashion.” In other words, any effect a corporate monopoly might have on an industry could be multiplied to unforeseen levels should the Chinese government decide to interfere with the market—which it has a track record of doing.
Multinational companies that have collaborated with Chinese state-owned enterprises have found themselves in enviable business positions in the past, international strategy consultant Thomas Hout wrote in 2014 in the Harvard Business Review. For example, a U.S. corporation that partners with the government may be able “to develop products in China faster than it otherwise could have,” and those businesses on the other side may find themselves similarly held back.
Based on past behavior, allowing the deal with Syngenta to go through raises the possibility that China could use its new acquisition to gain an unfair advantage over the global seed market, Johnson said. If more seed companies consolidate (or are pushed out of business), the consequences could be dire for the genetic diversity of seeds sold on the commercial market.
Past mergers between seed companies have allowed them to simplify their total catalog of offerings. Focusing on corn, soybeans, and cotton, the USDA’s Economic Research Service found that new research and development stopped or slowed as the seed industry began to consolidate in the 1990s. “Those companies that survived seed industry consolidation appear to be sponsoring less research relative to the size of their individual markets than when more companies were involved,” agricultural economists Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and David Schimmelpfennig wrote in a 2004 USDA publication. They added, “Fewer companies developing crops and marketing seeds may translate into fewer varieties offered.”
Consolidation of seed varieties is not a new trend. Throughout the history of agriculture, farmers have selected and saved seed varieties that were best adapted to their specific soil and climate conditions, resulting in thousands of variations of the same plant. But the largest seed companies prefer to sell a lot of just a few varieties of seeds to maximize profits. Over time, this one-size-fits-all approach to food has cut down on the types of commercially grown apples, oranges, and many other foods.
Some less popular varieties are lost for good, and seed varieties that were once perfectly adapted for a location may no longer exist. Those who are worried about seed diversity, especially in the face of climate change, worry that the shrinking choice of genetics could have disastrous consequences.
Johnson noted that mergers also reduce competition, causing the prices of seeds to rise. Consolidation was the highest during the 1990s and—after a brief slowdown—continued again into the late aughts, Philip Howard wrote in Sustainability in 2009. Between 2001 and 2010, according to the USDA, the price of genetically engineered corn and soybean seeds rose by 50 percent.
Another possibility is that the Chinese government could fast-track the approval of new genetic traits developed by Syngenta for use in China while allowing those from other countries and companies to languish, Johnson said. The Chinese market is, in some years, an important importer of corn—enough so that U.S. farmers take note of the type of corn China is buying. (In other years, its corn production is high enough that it has been the source of the second-largest corn exports.) Those farmers who grow corn for the export market could find themselves shut out of the Chinese market unless they grow approved varieties of corn. If Syngenta owned the only approved corn for import to China, it would give the company an effective monopoly over any farmer who hoped to export to that market.
Though WB Group is technically an independent company, many members of its board of directors were appointed by the Chinese government. The company also received preferential treatment and financial backing when proceeding with the Smithfield deal. As a result, there are unanswered questions about just how much distance there is between a corporation like WB Group and the Chinese government. If China decided to grant preferential treatment to Smithfield imports, it would be a huge economic coup, as China is the world’s largest consumer of pork. Thanks to L.B. 176, the WB Group–owned Smithfield could now take steps to own the entire production chain for pork production with the least geographic distance between U.S. pork production and the Chinese market.
There are those who dislike the intrusion of agribusiness into the U.S. food system and figure that any problems facing conventional farmers or agrichemical companies as a result are a win. But there are environmental and public health factors to consider as well.
One of the benefits to owning every aspect of production from feed through packaging is that “you can increase production essentially at will,” said Genoways. That production will lead to more barns being built and, in turn, waste coming out of those barns. “You need more feed for those pigs, so you’re raising more row crops and putting more of that waste onto the fields,” he explained. “It becomes a feedback loop.”
He pointed out that “this isn’t theoretical,” offering Iowa’s pork industry as an example. In early 2006, Hormel sued the government, asserting that Iowa’s packer ban—which, like Nebraska’s law, prevented pork processors from owning pork themselves—violated the U.S. Constitution. The company successfully received an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the existing law, allowing Hormel to begin contract farming in Iowa.
Between 2007 and 2012, Iowa had the largest increase in hog and pig sales of any state in the country—a jump of $1.9 billion. The runner-up, Minnesota, saw increases of only $600 million during the same period.
Based on the events in Iowa, Genoways predicts Nebraska will soon experience increases in surface water pollution. The number of polluted Iowan waterways increased 15 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the state’s Department of Natural Resources. That’s not all. Not only do the waste pits used to capture manure from large hog operations produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but new research is beginning to show that the pathogens can travel miles away.
Despite economic, environmental, and public health concerns, it looks like there is little political inclination to stop mergers like Syngenta’s or Smithfield’s from happening.
As Genoways said, “We haven’t just allowed vertical integration to come in—we’ve handed over a vertically integrated system to a foreign government.” All we can do now is wait and see what the consequences will be.
'Farmland REITs: a Growing Investment Option
Farmland investing is growing in popularity. And these three farmland REITs offer retail investors a way to play the growing global demand for food'.
We spoke of FARMVILLE being that GAME global banking 1% uses to make US 99% WE THE PEOPLE think we are actually designing and planning our own communities------FARMVILLE doing this for our rural citizens who are losing those small and regional farms if they managed to hold on to them during CLINTON MONSANTO GLOBAL BIG AG land policies. While US WE THE PEOPLE are gaming or thinking we are WINNERS because we have STOCK OPTION DIVIDEND payments while MOVING FORWARD kills literally everything that is US -----that is 99% wealth assets----
WE NEED TO WAKE UP----AND SMELL THE WASTELAND MOVING FORWARD.
These Chinese investors are China's 5% and global 2% remittance men----they will lose everything as global banking OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS will sack and loot any foreign investment.
Warning over Facebook FarmVille game
Popular Facebook game accused of encouraging young people to spend real money on virtual cash
Wed 4 Nov 2009 08.15 EST First published on Wed 4 Nov 2009 08.15 EST
FarmVille, a free online farm simulation game available through Facebook, has been accused of generating "hundreds of millions of dollars" from unsuspecting players, many of whom are children.
FarmVille has soared in popularity in the UK and US since its launch in June and has 63 million users, many of who are young teenagers. The game, which is the largest on Facebook, allows members to manage a virtual farm by planting, growing and harvesting crops, trees and livestock. According to Zynga, the company which developed the game, users have built more than 40m virtual farms, more than 20 times the number of actual farms in the US, and on an average day purchase 500,000 tractors to till their land.
On the surface, it seems a harmless, even beneficial, game, encouraging social networking, budgeting and planning.
But Michael Arrington, founder of the Techcrunch blog, has criticised Zynga for "monetising" FarmVille. He said it encouraged players to buy in-game currency, Farm Cash, which allows players to progress faster. New users are given some virtual coins, but users who are desperate to buy the tractors, seeds, cows and sheep more quickly can click on the "Add Farm Coins and Cash" link to buy virtual money with real cash. FarmVille makes clear in its terms and conditions that Farm Cash cannot be redeemed for "real world" money, goods or other items of monetary value from Zynga or any other party. Once real money has been used to buy virtual money, it is gone.
Farm Cash can be bought using credit cards or phone contracts, or accumulated by signing up for free trials with third parties, some of which require the player to hand over credit card or mobile phone numbers. This can result in a charge to that account if the player forgets to cancel the deal once the free trial ends.
In a post on Techcrunch, Arrington said: "These games try to get people to pay cash for in game currency so they can level up faster and have a better overall experience." However, people who do not want to pay by card, or young people who don't have their own credit card, can sign up for "offers" from advertisers to get more of the currency, or can pay through "pay by mobile" companies.
"Most of these offers are bad for consumers because it confusingly gets them to pay far more for in-game currency than if they just paid cash (there are notable exceptions, but the scammy stuff tends to crowd out the legitimate offers)," he said.
One of the companies that allows players to buy Farm Cash through mobile phone contracts is Boku.
Boku's terms and conditions stipulate that users must be 13 and have their parents' consent to use its services, or 18 without parental permission, and Facebook has a minimum age of 13 for users. However, in practice it is possible for young people to get around these rules and sign up without consent.
A spokesman for Facebook said: "Children under 13 are not permitted on Facebook and we have, and will continue to, investigate and disable the accounts of users believed to be under 13. We also encourage parents to talk to their children about safe internet use and to report to us any potential issues including usage of the service by their own kids."