He says it’s not about climate. So why is Bill Gates investing in farmland?

August 27, 2021

Rebecca Bauer is head of public relations and communication at FarmTogether, based in San Francisco, US. The views expressed in this guest article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those AFN.

For many investors, farmland was not on the radar as an investable asset class until earlier this year, when it was revealed that the largest owners of US farmland were none other than Bill and Melinda Gates.

Many were speculating about Gates’ motivation for the acquisitions – was it part of his larger sustainability strategy? As it happens, Gates says these investments are, in fact, not connected to climate. This might have surprised some – even the most savvy investors. But to those familiar with farmland, it’s easy to see why this asset class is so attractive for investors.

Institutional investors are hungry for farmland

For many years, farmland was not a common asset class among financial investors. Even after alternative investments became widespread, few funds looked carefully at the sector. Numerous barriers to entry stood in the way, including a highly fragmented market in which most farmland was family-owned; and a lack of investment professionals with the knowledge to value farmland investments.

The tide began to shift in the early 2000s, when institutional investors began to give farmland a closer look. Momentum accelerated during the 2008-2009 Great Financial Crisis, when investors grew desperate for alternatives to traditional safe haven investments like bonds and gold. In this short period of time, there was a proliferation in funds that were specifically focused on farmland investing. In 2020, there were 166 such funds globally, nearly a 9x increase from only 19 in 2005.

Farmland-focused investment funds, 2005-2020. Source: Valoral Advisors

The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund, for example, holds $1.2 trillion in farmland assets through its asset management arm, Nuveen.

Bill Gates’ investments in farmland can be seen as part of this trend. The Gates’ have been quietly acquiring farmland through their investment manager, Cascade Investment, for over 10 years. When the fund was profiled by The Wall Street Journal in 2014, it was already a significant farmland investor, with “at least 100,000 acres of farmland in California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, and other states.”

Following that profile, Cascade has made several other large farmland investments. In 2017, they paid the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) $520 million for a portfolio of farmland that had previously been owned by the Agricultural Company of America (AgCoA). When CPPIB acquired AgCoA’s portfolio in 2013, it was one of the largest institutional investors in row crop farmland in the US. Another notable acquisition was Cascade’s $170 million purchase of 14,500 acres of farmland in Washington state from John Hancock Life Insurance in 2018.

Today, Bill Gates owns 242,000 acres of farmland in 19 states. In addition, he owns 25,750 acres of transitional land and 1,234 acres of recreational land for total land holdings of 268,984 acres. His largest holding is in Louisiana (69,071 acres), followed by Arkansas (47,927 acres) and Arizona (25,750 acres).

Farmland delivers solid returns to investors

Farmland has historically delivered strong real returns from two distinct sources: rental and crop payments, and appreciation when the underlying asset is sold. Between 1992 and 2020, the average annual return from farmland was 10.9%, compared to 7.87% for the stock market and 6% for gold. In addition, farmland is an extremely low-volatility asset class. In this same time period, the volatility for farmland was 6.84% while the volatility of the stock market was 16.9% and gold was 14.8%.

NB: Data are based on annual total returns from January 1 1992 through December 31 2020. Asset classes are represented by the following indexes: privately-held US farmland – NCREIF Farmland Index; privately-held US commercial real estate – NCREIF Real Estate Index. Indexes are unmanaged and unavailable for direct investment. Source: NCREIF, publicly available data

Farmland also adds diversification to a portfolio, which is crucial for building long-term wealth. Investors achieve diversification through investing in multiple uncorrelated asset classes. Farmland is uncorrelated with other major asset classes including stocks, bonds, and gold, meaning that it is not impacted by shocks which affect the price of other assets. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the stock market decreased by 19.8% between Q4 2019 and Q1 2020. In contrast, farmland decreased by 0.1% – only its second negative quarter since 1992.

Farmland is a sustainable asset class

Despite sustainable agricultural development being one of the key focus areas for his nonprofit Gates Foundation, the Microsoft co-founder claims that his farmland investments are not tied to climate. But while Gates might be solely focused on returns, one should not overlook farmland investing’s potential to drive sustainability on a massive scale.

Bill and Melinda Gates can create world’s biggest agrifoodtech testbed – but they need to win over farmers first. Read more here

High-tech and sustainable approaches are needed to ensure that farmers will be capable of meeting the agricultural needs of the 21st century and the planet’s growing population, amid a changing climate and increasingly scarce resources. These sustainable and productivity-enhancing improvements include organic or nature-based farming methods, water conservation, and other agronomic innovations to improve the efficiency of farms. Despite these methods gaining popularity, however, many of the transitions are prohibitively costly for farmers.

It’s here that investments play a crucial role. By providing an injection of cash, farmland investors are facilitating much-needed capital improvements and increasing the sustainability of farms long-term.

Plus, sustainably managed farmland will reinforce the land’s value overtime. Farms with healthy soils, ample water, and efficient infrastructure are worth more, and this will be more true in a future where high-quality farmland is increasingly scarce.

You no longer need Gates levels of wealth to reap the benefits of farmland

For too long, farmland investing has been restricted to a handful of institutional investors and ultra-high net worth individuals like the Gates’ due to high barriers to entry – including opaque markets and large minimum investments. Fortunately, this is no longer the case.

Crowdfunding investment platforms, for example, allow accredited investors to own a portion of farmland with low minimums starting at just $15,000. These platforms eliminate many of the barriers to investing in farmland and offer access to a selection of investment opportunities, ranging from apples to nuts and citrus.

Another way to invest in farmland, although not direct, is to invest in real estate investment trusts (REITs) such as Farmland Partners, or ag commodity ETFs. While these funds expose investors to a few of the benefits of farmland, they are ultimately tied to the stock market and its unpredictable swings.

The potential reasons behind Gates’ farmland investments are broad. From its vital role in the global food supply to its historically strong financial performance, farmland can play a significant role in any portfolio. Now, it’s easier than ever to invest – even without being one of the richest men on the planet.

farmland, Frankly Speaking, United States

AgTech NEXT 2022 will examine how technology, trade and talent can reinforce our food system

Brief: Exit for CoverCress as Bayer buys majority stake in gene-edited cover crop startup

Q&A: Inside AgriCapture’s 50,000-plus-acre cover cropping program in the US

Why Oman is investing in alt protein with a US 🍄 startup

Early in the pandemic, Americans lined up for hours outside of food banks, awaiting their chance to collect groceries. Many of them had experienced food insecurity before Covid-19. Tens of millions of others were new to such assistance. Only thanks to emergency federal intervention was a serious hunger crisis averted in 2020.

Unfortunately, even as the pandemic has eased by some measures, a range of factors is still preventing many Americans from finding enough to eat. Those stresses continue to fall on the nation’s food banks. As Covid drags on, their mission is becoming harder and more expensive. To ensure that the lingering effects of the coronavirus don’t lead to sparse dinner tables this winter, Congress should step up for the charities that keep Americans fed.

Food insecurity is a condition in which individuals and families lack access to enough food to live a healthy life. In 2019, 10.9% of Americans, or roughly 35 million people, fit that description at some point. Government programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) helped reduce those numbers. So did food banks.

Even with such help, though, food insecurity persisted. When Covid and its economic disruptions hit, already vulnerable demographics found themselves in particular need. So too did the newly unemployed, those whose hours were cut substantially, and parents suddenly forced to stay home due to closed schools and daycares. The impact on food banks was dramatic: According to the charity Feeding America, the number of people needing food assistance soared to 60 million in 2020, up 50% from the previous year.

Congress responded with a range of emergency measures, including expanded SNAP benefits and school-meal delivery programs. But for food banks, the most important step was a $1.2 billion injection to the Emergency Food Assistance Program, under which the Department of Agriculture buys food from farmers and distributes it to states. In 2020, that program and others allowed Feeding America and its associates to distribute 2.5 billion meals. That assistance worked wonders: Despite the pandemic and associated disruptions, American food insecurity didn’t increase in 2020.

Second Harvest Heartland, a Twin Cities food bank, has distributed nearly 200 million pounds of food since the start of the pandemic. Even so, demand has yet to slacken. Allison O’Toole, the group’s chief executive officer, told me that food shelf visits are still 30% over pre-pandemic numbers, in line with what other U.S. food banks are reporting. “I would frankly like to say that the worst of the Covid hunger crisis is over. And it’s just not true,” she said.

She cited many factors at play in Minnesota, including high Covid hospitalization rates, the end of emergency unemployment and SNAP benefits, and food inflation — which not only hurts individuals and families, but also affects food banks that rely on donations and their own food purchases. “We are seeing prices going up, from canned veggies and fruit, to proteins.” The last category is particularly worrisome: At Second Harvest, meat donations are down roughly 30%.

In 2020, government aid helped fill such gaps. But many of those programs ended over the past year, while private donations have often dried up. Food banks have increased their purchases by 58% compared to 2020, but rising prices and supply-chain disruptions have meant that those purchases don’t go as far they once did, imperiling nutrition for those who can least afford it.

As the U.S. faces new variants and another Covid winter, that’s a looming crisis that the government can’t ignore. Although Congress is expected to offer another $2 billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program in 2022, America’s food banks — led by Feeding America — argue that’s insufficient to address the current wave of those needing help. They’re seeking an additional $900 million to help stock their shelves and meet sustained demand.

It’s a reasonable request, and Congress should approve it. But these emergency interventions should prompt deeper investigations into how and why food insecurity remains a chronic, decades-old problem in America — one that Covid has only made worse.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Adam Minter at aminter@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net

America’s Hunger Pandemic Is Getting Worse

A slew of factors — including poverty, inflation and Covid — have placed tens of millions of Americans at risk of food insecurity.

The permanent emergency.
Photographer: Mario Tama/Getty

Adam Minter

January 2, 2022, 9:00 PM GMT+8

4:00

Follow the authors

Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia, technology and the environment. He is author, most recently, of “Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.” @AdamMinter

+ Get alerts for

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Adam Minter at aminter@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net

Record number of people worldwide are moving toward starvation

Record number of people worldwide are moving toward starvation, U.N. warns

July 7, 20222:15 AM ET

The Associated Press

Sergei, 11, waits his turn to receive donated food during an aid humanitarian distribution in Bucha, in the outskirts of Kyiv, on Tuesday, April 19, 2022.

Emilio Morenatti/AP

UNITED NATIONS — The spike in food, fuel and fertilizer prices sparked by the war in Ukraine is threatening to push countries around the world into famine, bringing "global destabilization, starvation and mass migration on an unprecedented scale," a top U.N. official warned Wednesday.

David Beasley, head of the U.N. World Food Program, said its latest analysis shows that "a record 345 million acutely hungry people are marching to the brink of starvation" — a 25% increase from 276 million at the start of 2022 before Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. The number stood at 135 million before the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020.

"There's a real danger it will climb even higher in the months ahead," he said. "Even more worrying is that when this group is broken down, a staggering 50 million people in 45 countries are just one step away from famine."

Consider This from NPR

How The War In Ukraine Is Deepening The World's Hunger Crisis

Beasley spoke at a high-level U.N. meeting for the release of the latest report on global hunger by the World Food Program and four other U.N. agencies that paints a grim picture.

The report, "The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World," says world hunger rose in 2021, with around 2.3 billion people facing moderate or severe difficulty obtaining enough to eat. The number facing severe food insecurity increased to about 924 million.

The prevalence of "undernourishment" — when food consumption is insufficient to maintain an active and healthy life — is used to measure hunger, and it continued to rise in 2021. The report estimates that between 702 million and 828 million people faced hunger last year.

Would humans be good cattle?

https://www.quora.com/Would-humans-be-good-cattle

Would humans be good cattle?

Ad by Amazon Web Services (AWS)

AWS is how.

AWS removes the complexity of building, training, and deploying machine learning models at any scale.

Sort

Anonymous

In the sense of a food source, nah. I'm thinking we reproduce and grow too slowly to make a good meat source. That means it'd be time-consuming to breed "better" traits (higher meat yield, faster growth, more complacent and less violent/likely to resist being exploited) and it wouldn't be an efficient or fast way to produce meat (assuming you are set on breeding and raising them yourself. If you're just eating whoever's already here on earth, then sure, there's an endless supply of human meat, if you can manage to get other people to not put you on death row for eating other people).

Nutritionally, our meat would probably be fine EXCEPT that humans use a wide variety of medications, which I suppose could possibly make eating the flesh risky or unsafe. In terms of taste, I've read that human meat is similar to veal (oh, the time i've spent googling random questions), so perhaps it would be a palatable meat if you could get over the psychological barrier of knowing you're eating human flesh.

Also, as we have seen in history of humans repeatedly eventually organizing together and uprising when they feel exploited, abused, or are in danger of death... I'm sure those trying to farm those humans would probably eventually be overthrown or killed themselves.

So in short, no, humans would not be good cattle. It'd be uneconomical, time-consuming, and your stock would very likely uprise and kill you.

Also, I'd like to add that none of this is well-researched and I'm just throwing out my speculations, ha.

550 views

View upvotes

Bakit kailangang maging permanente ang mga constituent assemblies?

Cato Maior Asiaticus, [8/2/22 12:38 PM]

Bakit kailangang maging permanente ang mga constituent assemblies?

Pinupuno mo ang iyong bibig ng malalaking salita: demokrasya, kalayaan, katarungan - at pagkatapos ay i-censor mo nang eksakto sa "social media" na ang dami mong sinasabi na pinupuna mo. Sa palagay mo ba ay karapat-dapat kang "mahalal" sa anumang pampublikong tungkulin?

Hindi, hindi namin nilayon na lumikha o pumunta sa anumang isla at gawin itong totalitarian: umiiral na ang isla na iyon - at nilikha mo ito gamit ang iyong sariling mga kamay at iyong sariling mga isip.

Nasaan ang demokrasya, kalayaan at hustisya mula 1947 hanggang ngayon sa Italya? Wala kahit saan?

Ano ang pinag-uusapan natin: programmatic regulatory intentions, morgane fairies o optical illusions?

Paano naging posible na sa isang pseudo-state, na pinaniniwalaang nabubuhay sa demokrasya, kalayaan at katarungan, ang isang sekta ng mga psychopath ay maaaring lumikha sa loob ng mga linggo ng isang MATERYAL na konstitusyon na lubos na naiiba sa pormal, isang TOTALITARY material na konstitusyon, kapag ang pormal, na gustong maging matigas, ito ba ay dinisenyo upang pigilan at labanan ang pagbabalik ng anumang anyo ng totalitarianismo? (Hindi mahalaga ang kaliwa o kanan).

Ang parliamentarism ay isang nilalang ng mga elite: kapag kinakausap ka nila tungkol sa gobyerno ng pinakamahusay, tinutukoy nila ang estado ng "pinakamahusay" na lumikha ng estado ng Albertine sa Italya, sila, ang Tommaseo, na nagsabing sila ang pinakamahusay - hanggang sa kailanganin nilang ipadala si Bava Beccaris para kumbinsihin ang iba.

Ang pangunahing dahilan ng pagbagsak ng mga garantiya ng konstitusyon sa Italya ay isa lamang: ANG MGA TAONG WALANG BOLA.

Hindi ko ililista dito ang mga pangunahing katangian ng Italyano, ng pagiging Italyano ngayon: Nililimitahan ko ang aking sarili sa pagturo ng daliri, halimbawa sa representante ng mamamayang Italyano na si Luigi di Maio - ang imahe ay nagpapaliwanag ng higit sa milyun-milyong salita.

Paano ka napunta sa ganitong sitwasyon?

Isang maling demokrasya, isang pekeng demokrasya? Ngunit paano dapat ang isang demokrasya na hindi may depekto, hindi mali?

Ang kahilingan para sa isang Permanent Constituent Assembly of the Italian People ay hindi isang napakalaking kahilingan: ito ang lohikal na solusyon sa pinaka sinaunang dilemma ng teorya ng pulitika, na alam nating kasing edad ng mundo, gaya natin. nalaman ito sa pamamagitan ni Plato: SINO ANG DAPAT KUMILOS SA MGA CONTROLLER?

Si Plato, gaya ng kilalang-kilala, ay nagsabi: walang sinuman, dapat lamang silang maging ganap na walang kinikilingan at ganap na mahirap na "mga tagapag-alaga", ngunit hindi natin alam kung paano niya naisip na "lumikha" sila, upang turuan sila at, higit sa lahat, panatilihin sila tulad nito. Tinanggihan niya ang ideya na ang mga controllers ay dapat kontrolin ng iba pang mga controllers, dahil ito ay hahantong sa lohikal na kabalintunaan ng isang walang katapusang hierarchy ng mga controllers.

Ang solusyon ng kabalintunaan na ito ay may kaugnayan hindi lamang para sa teorya ng parlyamentaryo na demokrasya, kundi pati na rin sa presidential one, ng anumang umiiral na sistemang pampulitika.

Ang isang simpleng solusyon ay umiiral: ito ay ang mga kinokontrol na kailangang kontrolin ang mga controllers at magagawa nila ito sa pamamagitan ng mga institusyonal na pamamaraan sa isang Constituent Assembly, na gayunpaman ay hindi dapat "matunaw" ng isang kapangyarihan na nasa labas nito, na ay, ito ay dapat na permanente. .

Tulad ng alam natin mula sa kasaysayan ng medieval, ang mga parlyamento ay orihinal na hindi permanente o "ginawa" ang mga batas, sila ay tinawag ayon sa pagkakataon ng mga pyudal na potentates at binubuo ng mga "pangkaraniwang" hukom, na maaaring parehong "tumuklas" at "lumikha" ng batas. .

Cato Maior Asiaticus, [8/2/22 12:39 PM]
Ang Constituent Assembly, sa likas na katangian nito, ay ang katawan ng pulitika ng tao na posibleng mas may kakayahang maging "walang kinikilingan", dahil may tungkulin itong magpasya kung paano gustong pamahalaan ng isang tao ang sarili nito, nang independiyenteng mga Guelph at Ghibellines, kanan at kaliwa, puti at itim at iba pa.

Sa pamamagitan ng paggawa nitong PERMANENTE, nagiging institutionalizable ang pagsasanay ng paggamit ng popular na soberanya: Ito ay isang pinakamataas na kapangyarihan, higit sa parliament, executive at maging sa pseudo-judicial guarantee body ngayon, i.e. ang constitutional court, council of state at cassation. .

Isang isla ng totalitarianism?

Depende ito sa kung paano at kung sino ang namamahala nito, siyempre. Hindi ko ito inisip bilang isang isla, ngunit bilang isang permanenteng constituent tournament, iyon ay isang puwang kung saan ang lahat ng mga mamamayan ay malayang makaka-access upang magmungkahi ng mga ideya kung paano nila gustong pamahalaan at kung paano sila hindi gustong pamahalaan at kung saan. , sa pamamagitan ng mga pamamaraang pambatasan, na napapailalim sa popular na batas, maging mga inisyatiba man o referendum, ang mga kolektibong desisyon ay naaabot.

Ang Permanent Constituent Assembly ay hindi isang "objective order", iyon ay: wala itong mga recipe at hindi ito nagbibigay ng mga recipe.

Pinapadali lamang nito ang materyalisasyon ng mga ideya tungkol sa "pinakamahusay na paraan" na pamamahalaan sa pamamagitan ng mga pamamaraan sa pakikipagkumpitensya sa lipunan (permanent constituent tournaments);

- Inilalaan ang ilang mga kapangyarihang pampulitika at pang-ekonomiya sa mga tao sa ganap na termino, na inaalis sila sa mga parlyamento, ehekutibo at korte sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng isang sistemang pambatasan na napapailalim sa popular na batas;

- DIREKTANG NAGSASANAY NG KAPANGYARIHAN NG KONTROL SA ANUMANG OPISYAL NG PUBLIKO, anuman ang pagkakasunud-sunod at antas, isasailalim silang lahat sa mga pamamaraan ng pag-ikot, pagguhit ng lot, direktang pagtanggal sa pamamagitan ng "recall";

- tinitiyak ang kawalang-kinikilingan at kahusayan ng mga administrasyon sa pamamagitan ng administratibo at kriminal na mga instrumento, na pumipigil sa kanila na "mahuli" ng mga makapangyarihan sa ekonomiya-pinansyal at samakatuwid ay napapailalim sa pang-aabuso ng mga karapatan at pang-aabuso sa kapangyarihan;

- tinitiyak, sa pamamagitan ng administratibo at kriminal na mga instrumento, ang sapat na parusa sa mga pag-uugaling nakapipinsala sa kawalang-kinikilingan ng mga pampublikong institusyon.

Ang listahan ay hindi nilayon na maging kumpleto.

Sa maikling salita: inilalagay nito ang mga Tao bilang pinuno, tagapamagitan, mambabatas, tagapangasiwa at hukom higit sa lahat, na ang mga kapangyarihan ay AKTUWAL na limitado at kontrolado, higit sa lahat upang maiwasan ang mga pang-aabuso sa batas, mga pang-aabuso sa kapangyarihang pampulitika, mga pang-aabuso sa ekonomiya at pananalapi. kapangyarihan at supilin sila sa pamamagitan ng sapat na administratibo at kriminal na mga instrumento.

Bakit may NWO at ang Great Reset?

Dahil walang tunay na kapangyarihang makaiwas sa constitutional subversion na pinamamahalaan ng mga semi-clandestine na organisasyong ito.

Kaya?

Demokrasya, kalayaan, katarungan: mga partido ng fancazzisti na walang kakayahang umunawa at gusto tulad ng dati at higit pa kaysa dati - at lahat ay bumaba upang i-censor ang lahat.

You qualify yourself, hindi ko na kailangan para maging qualify ka.

Ang sinumang gustong makawala sa hawakan ng mga pinunong ito ng kudeta ng estado, mga mamamatay-tao na psychopath, na nagsasabing lumikha ng isang "unibersal na pamahalaan", ay may isang pagpipilian lamang: GUMAWA NG BAGONG ESTADO, dahil ang pakikipaglaban sa NWO at ang GREAT RESET ay nangangailangan ng mga desisyon ng estado. , hindi mga terorista, lalo na ang mga kuneho sa botohan.

1. Militar na pagpapalaya ng Italya: PAGLIKHA NG MALAYANG ESTADO NG MGA TAONG ITALYANO, SA PALIGID NG PERMANENT CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY ng pareho at ng LIBERATION ARMY bilang isang sanctuary state para sa lahat ng inuusig ng NWO / GREAT RESET sect;

2. International containment ng NWO / Great Reset hanggang sa pagkalipol nito;

3. Pagpipigil ng pampulitika na pang-aabuso sa kapangyarihang pang-ekonomiya at pananalapi ng anumang uri ng kumpanya, pampubliko at/o pribado, sa pamamagitan ng mga instrumentong administratibo at kriminal.

为什么制宪会议必须成为永久性的?

Cato Maior Asiaticus，[22 年 8 月 2 日下午 12:38]

为什么制宪会议必须成为永久性的？

你用大话填满你的嘴：民主、自由、正义——然后你在“社交媒体”上精确地审查你说了那么多你批评的“社交媒体”。你真的认为你应该被“选举”到任何公共场合吗？

不，我们不打算创建或前往任何岛屿并使其成为极权主义：那个岛屿已经存在——你用自己的双手和自己的思想创造了它。

从 1947 年至今，意大利的民主、自由和正义在哪里？无处？

我们在谈论什么：程序化监管意图、摩根仙女或视错觉？

在一个相信生活在民主、自由和正义中的伪国家里，一群精神病患者怎么可能在几周内创造出一个与正式宪法完全不同的物质宪法，一个全面的物质宪法，当正式的宪法，它本来希望是僵化的，它是否旨在防止和打击任何形式的极权主义的回归？（左或右无关紧要）。

议会制是精英的产物：当他们与你谈论最好的政府时，他们指的是在意大利创造了阿尔伯丁州的“最好”状态，正是他们，托马塞奥，说他们是最好的——直到他们不得不派 Bava Beccaris 说服其他人。

意大利宪法保障崩溃的根本原因只有一个：一个没有球的人。

我不会在这里列出意大利性的基本特征，即今天的意大利人：我仅限于用手指指指点点，例如意大利人民代表 Luigi di Maio - 图像解释的内容远远超过数百万字。

你是怎么落到这种境地的？

一个有缺陷的民主，一个虚假的民主？但是一个没有缺陷、没有错误的民主应该如何？

要求召开意大利人民常设制宪会议并不是一个牵强附会的要求：它是对最古老的政治理论困境的合乎逻辑的解决方案，我们知道它与世界一样古老，因为我们通过柏拉图知道：谁应该控制控制器？

众所周知，柏拉图说过：没有人，他们只能是绝对公正和绝对可怜的“监护人”，但我们不知道他想如何“创造”他们，教育他们，最重要的是留住他们像这样。他拒绝控制器应该由其他控制器控制的想法，因为这会导致控制器无限层次的逻辑悖论。

这一悖论的解决不仅与议会民主理论相关，而且与总统制理论、任何现有政治制度相关。

存在一个简单的解决方案：必须控制控制者的是受控制者，他们可以通过制宪会议中的制度化程序来做到这一点，但是它不能被外部权力“解散”，即是的，它必须是永久的。

正如我们从中世纪历史所知道的那样，议会原本既不是永久性的，也不是“制定”法律的，它们是由封建统治者根据机会召集的，由“普通”法官组成，他们可以“发现”和“创造”法律。 .

Cato Maior Asiaticus，[22 年 8 月 2 日下午 12:39]
制宪议会，就其本质而言，是人类政治机构，可能更有能力“公正”，因为它的任务是决定一个民族想要如何治理自己，独立于圭尔夫和吉贝林，左右，白人和黑人等等。

通过使其永久化，行使人民主权的实践变得制度化：它是一种至高无上的权力，高于议会、行政机构甚至当今的伪司法保障机构，即宪法法院、国务委员会和最高法院.

极权主义的孤岛？

当然，这取决于如何以及由谁来管理它。我不认为它是一个岛屿，而是一个永久的选民锦标赛，这是一个所有公民都可以自由进入的空间，可以就他们希望如何被治理、他们不想如何被治理以及在其中提出想法。，通过立法程序，根据大众法，无论是倡议还是公民投票，都可以达成集体决定。

永久制宪会议不是“客观秩序”，即：它没有食谱，也不给食谱。

它只会促进通过社会公正的竞争程序（永久选民锦标赛）来管理关于“最佳方式”的想法的具体化；

- 将某些政治和经济权力绝对保留给人民，通过行使受大众法约束的立法制度，将其从议会、行政部门和法院手中夺走；

- 直接对任何公职人员行使控制权，无论其顺序和程度如何，对他们进行轮换程序、抽签、通过“召回”的方式直接罢免；

- 通过行政和刑事手段确保行政部门的公正性和效率，防止他们被经济金融当权者“俘虏”，从而遭受权利滥用和滥用权力；

- 通过行政和刑事手段确保对损害公共机构公正性的行为进行适当惩处。

该列表并不完整。

简而言之：它把人民作为领袖、仲裁者、立法者、行政人员和法官高于所有其他人，他们的权力实际上受到限制和控制，最重要的是为了防止滥用法律、滥用政治权力、滥用经济和金融权力并通过适当的行政和刑事手段压制他们。

为什么会有 NWO 和大重置？

因为没有真正的权力能够避免这些半秘密组织的颠覆宪法。

所以？

民主、自由、正义：狂热的政党无法像以前那样理解和渴望，而且比以前更多——每个人都可以审查一切。

你自己有资格，我没有必要让你有资格。

谁想要摆脱这些声称要建立“普遍政府”的国家政变领导人，凶残的精神病患者，只有一个选择：创建一个新国家，因为与 NWO 和大重置作斗争需要国家的决定，不是恐怖分子，更不用说投票兔子了。

1. 意大利的军事解放：在永久制宪会议和解放军周围建立意大利人民的自由国家，作为所有受 NWO / GREAT RESET 教派迫害的人的庇护国；

2. 国际上对 NWO / Great Reset 的遏制直至其灭绝；

3. 通过行政和刑事手段遏制任何类型的公共和/或私人公司对经济和金融权力的政治滥用。

He says it’s not about climate. So why is Bill Gates investing in farmland?

Institutional investors are hungry for farmland

Farmland delivers solid returns to investors

Farmland is a sustainable asset class

You no longer need Gates levels of wealth to reap the benefits of farmland

Join the Newsletter

Get the latest news & research from AFN and AgFunder in your inbox.

AgFunder Newsletters & Research

Get the latest news in your inbox. Weekly.

Follow us:

Sponsored Content

Frankly Speaking

Editor's Pick

Data Snapshot

Investor Insight

Tailgate Talk

Research & Data

America’s Hunger Pandemic Is Getting Worse

Share this article

America’s Hunger Pandemic Is Getting Worse

Share this article

Record number of people worldwide are moving toward starvation, U.N. warns

Lettera aperta al signor Luigi di Maio, deputato del Popolo Italiano