You can't stop it with money, but you can reduce it with more human labor/management. And money buys human labor.
And, even though people are figuring out how to deal with the problem, that doesn't mean that the problem is over.
And, even though people are figuring out how to deal with the problem, that doesn't mean that the problem is over.
If you view the problem as being that bees are being killed by something, then yes, this doesn't solve the problem. But isn't the problem ultimately how many bees you have, not the rate at which they're reproducing and dying?
The comment I replied to seems to be implying that the death of the honeybee is still nigh, and that this extra money is just temporarily hiding it. But how could that be?
The problem comes when "creating" more bees becomes too expensive/difficult, and you can no longer afford it.
In HN terms: a little cash infusion can make everything look great... until it runs out.
Edit: this comment does a much better job of using HN terms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10024771
Anyway, I think these analogies fail because they keep talking about investors, where you're supposed to be spending money up front for a great return later on. If you're spending more and more money to maintain the same future return then you're in trouble. But things like money spent on bees and honey prices are just straightforward money-for-product transactions.
Since the colonies are still collapsing without explanation, a modicum of pessimism might be understandable, even if it isn't completely justifiable.