grim news indeed

[mike]

and if i were a kiwi, i'd be shaking in my boots right now if this fact ever became widely aware of. i'm a yank and we have some country just to the north of us ( i think it's called canada) which at one time was probably the northern hemisphere's (THE BEST HEMISPHERE !!, MIKE AND STONEHART ** can you unlike something if you don't agree with it?**version of new zealand, but what with the alberta tar sands and canadian claim and enforcement of some parts of the northwest passage (for fossil fuel claims) de is becoming more like us

He said the sale of land overseas is a strategic problem for New Zealand's economic future and it seems "a very strange thing" for a government SOE to be doing.
The Greens say they are opposed to foreigners of any nationality being able to buy land in New Zealand and the Government needs to revise the rules for all.
"The greens objected for example when Shania Twain was buying land many years ago and we raised concerns around James Cameron [buying land in New Zealand].

NZ 'under scrutiny' in Asia over Crafar deal | BUSINESS News

 

[stonehart]

NZ 'under scrutiny' in Asia over Crafar deal | BUSINESS News

Yeah kiwis can get a bit stroppy when it comes to people trying to buy bits of our back yard and I do not support the sale of our country to overseas interests for many reasons of which almost all are environmental

 

[Wade]

not to sidetrack the thread, but didn't kim dotcom get some kind of limited residency in part because he 'saved' that piece of property he was living on at the time of his bust??

 

[stonehart]

not to sidetrack the thread, but didn't kim dotcom get some kind of limited residency in part because he 'saved' that piece of property he was living on at the time of his bust??

yes I believe you may be correct.

 

[mike]

Yeah kiwis can get a bit stroppy when it comes to people trying to buy bits of our back yard and I do not support the sale of our country to overseas interests for many reasons of which almost all are environmental

I tend to agree especially where china is concerned

A million Chinese farmers have joined the rush to Africa, according to one estimate, underlining concerns that an unchecked "land grab" not seen since the 19th century is under way.
Some of the world’s richest countries are buying or leasing land in some of the world’s poorest to satisfy insatiable appetites for food and fuel. In the new scramble for Africa, nearly 2.5m hectares (6.2m acres) of farmland in just five sub-Saharan countries have been bought or rented in the past five years at a total cost of $920m (£563m), research shows.
"Lands that only a short time ago seemed of little outside interest are now being sought by international investors to the tune of hundreds of thousands of hectares," said a recent report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). It described the huge deals reported to date as "the tip of the iceberg".
The report said farmland purchases are being driven by food security concerns, rising demand and changing dietary habits, expanded biofuel production and interest in what is, in theory, an improved investment climate in some African countries.

 

[stonehart]

I tend to agree especially where china is concerned

and when it comes to the food grown on that land it will all get shipped overseas and the local people will continue to starve or live on the edge of it with the profit going to ......

shit I will fin this latter we just had an earthquake.


latter






OK well that sucked .. just waiting for the aftershock now.. it was a 5.2 and shallow so it hit like a hammer.. Living on the ring of fire is dodgy

 

[mike]

and when it comes to the food grown on that land it will all get shipped overseas and the local people will continue to starve or live on the edge of it with the profit going to ......

shit I will fin this latter we just had an earthquake.


latter






OK well that sucked .. just waiting for the aftershock now.. it was a 5.2 and shallow so it hit like a hammer.. Living on the ring of fire is dodgy

Oh hell, what a worry
hope all is ok

 

[stonehart]

Oh hell, what a worry hope all is ok

Yeah it just knocked a few things over.... the wife is ok so all good... I am getting sick of these things Mike I can tell you.

lol anyway how was that for real time quake report.

GeoNet Rapid (Beta)

 

[mike]

Yeah it just knocked a few things over.... the wife is ok so all good... I am getting sick of these things Mike I can tell you.

lol anyway how was that for real time quake report.

GeoNet Rapid (Beta)

On the one hand pretty awesome, but on the other i worry about you.

Ive been in a few NZ quakes myself when i lived in Dunedin, they are no fun

 

[Wade]

I tend to agree especially where china is concerned

Resource wise, it seems the chinese will be to the 21st century to what the us was to the 20th and the brits to the 19th. I guess it goes with the territory. How much sooner b4 they enjoy the fruits of a little imperial overreach

 

[stonehart]

On the one hand pretty awesome, but on the other i worry about you.

Ive been in a few NZ quakes myself when i lived in Dunedin, they are no fun

No I agree they tend to be sharp shallow quakes ... not going to move lol I been through bigger

 

[Blabyboy]

its a very old analogy of the earth as a closed system ... NOTE DIFFICULT TO LEAVE.

Can you actually define what you mean by a closed system please, because checking the definitions on Wikipedia, your analogy fails on all four. Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should say imagine an Island you can not leave..

That's fine, but it's still not a closed system.

Also try pissing into space from down here ... good luck.

I leave to the tens of astronauts that have already ejected their detritus for me.

Now as far as efficiency goes.. do not get me started for the economic system is anything but!

The economic system by definition it is not efficient and not meant to be so

OMFG you really do not have a clue about economic theory do you..

don't fool yourself if it was efficient the price of goods would be lower not higher.

I never said it would be lower, I said that politics screws up the ability for a true free market to exist. This also means that some prices might indeed be higher. An example here might be the oil 'cartel' of the oil producing states where they exchange political influence for manipulation of the oil prices via OPEC.

A higher price index on goods means many things but it always means the level of efficiency in production and transport.

Can you explain this statement further, re-reading it, it seems contradictory. So a higher price index can be many things but it is also a constant defined as the efficiency in production and transport? Surely, you mean efficiency is one constant aspect of several other variables that define a higher price index?

As I said I import goods and I have a very good grasp of it.

Good for you.

 

[stonehart]

Can you actually define what you mean by a closed system please, because checking the definitions on Wikipedia, your analogy fails on all four. Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's fine, but it's still not a closed system.


I leave to the tens of astronauts that have already ejected their detritus for me.


OMFG you really do not have a clue about economic theory do you..


I never said it would be lower, I said that politics screws up the ability for a true free market to exist. This also means that some prices might indeed be higher. An example here might be the oil 'cartel' of the oil producing states where they exchange political influence for manipulation of the oil prices via OPEC.


Can you explain this statement further, re-reading it, it seems contradictory. So a higher price index can be many things but it is also a constant defined as the efficiency in production and transport? Surely, you mean efficiency is one constant aspect of several other variables that define a higher price index?


Good for you.

since you started with a personal attack the first time you posted I am not interested in explaining anything to you

 

[Blabyboy]

The world population is still growing and at an exponential rate and no one will argue with this

gah! you're really not helping yourself with this are you? Quick check on wikipedia reveals that:

Current projections show a continued increase in population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate), with the global population expected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by 2050

See: World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do know what the word exponential means right?

 

[Blabyboy]

since you started with a personal attack the first time you posted I am not interested in explaining anything to you

Thanks for editing your post to not calling me retarded.

I am genuinely sorry if you feel I am attacking you for being you, but you have made several statements which show either a lack of understanding or are not true. I think I have the right to question those points just as you question others. My apologies for calling you foolish.

Bb

 

[stonehart]

Closed System .. DICTIONARY EXPLANATION! they are helpful and you should get one.

Main Entry: closed system
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a complete and seemingly unchangeable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a self-contained system that is unaffected by outside influences

closed system
A physical system that does not interact with other systems. A closed system obeys the conservation laws in its physical description. Also called isolated system

REMEMBER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OIL!!!!!!!!! and that is from the Science dictionary of which I have a copy next to four other dictionary and a number of other books on language.

pray tell me where else you are going to find oil other than earth as such it is a closed system...
The same use of the word is used by engineers.


Now I will no longer answer a question from you and consider yourself blocked.


enjoy the forums

Peace any bye bye

 

[Blabyboy]

For a start we were discussing the finite availability of resources such as oil (please go back and read the posts), and pray do tell how many "Meteors and asteroids" we need to rain down on this planet to top up our supplies on a day to day basis... well? don't be absurd.

Ok, to explain my point on this. In your first long post you state:

"Logic prevails that in a closed system all things have either a finite short term use or a final fixed rate of extraction (this would cover such things as coal and oil as they take a long time via geological process to become the carbon fuels we need for our modern civilization)."

So you already accept that the time frame extends for literally millions of years. So, in that same time frame, we have had numerous meteor impacts and part of the results of those impacts has been mass extinctions. Mass extinctions lead to lots of dead animals/plants... and these break down in part to form oil. So we can't have a closed system because foreign matter has entered that system, caused an event which has ultimately led to the production of oil. We could perhaps go further and say if we could identify definitively, all the major impact locations on the Earth then we could possibly identify where there might be larger concentrations of oil in the approximate vicinity due to localised large amounts of dead plants/animals.

That really amounts to sweet stuff all.

Note I was not talking about the moon or renewable resources of energy we were discussing oil which makes for 50% of our industrial and consumer energy needs.

I get that, I was contesting the closed system fallacy.

old data but worth pointing out.

Any data is useful, so sure absolutely.

I also state in my post that there are other energy forms that could be used.

You did, I have no quibble with that whatsoever.

and what on earth has animal migration got to do with oil extraction efficiency and economic consequences!

Because oil is composed from plankton which drives animal migration - the plankton feeders will follow the blooms. The Moon creates the tides which helps form the patterns of the plankton/animal migration and this outside influence means a Closed system cannot be in operation. If we could extrapolate back in time that animal migration patterns were consistent, then we would have good candidates for identifying where large deposits of dead plankton and plankton feeding animals might be... and then we 'd have a better chance of hitting oil with reduced costs for exploration.

 

[Blabyboy]

Now I will no longer answer a question from you and consider yourself blocked.


enjoy the forums

Peace any bye bye

That is a genuine shame, once we'd got past this bit, I was looking forward to debating how we wouldn't reach the point of no oil because other solutions would have become economically viable.

Oh well, peace be with you and hopefully we'll mend our differences in time.