That seems likely. I already spend far more on food than I do on gas each month, so when food prices rise just a little bit it effects me far more than gas jumping up by .50 per gallon.
The headline on this story is spectacularly misleading. It sounds like food prices are rising sharply right now, when they are not.
The story is really about comparing the economic effects of price rises in food versus oil over the last twenty or so years. Oil got most of the publicity, but food price spikes had a profound effect on the overall economy too.
But who would click on a link if they knew that's what it was about.
Food is THE commodity market. No other market can more closely resemble the traditional economic cycle than food.
Decreased production is often the result of high inventory, which is often the result of high retail prices, which is often the result of less raw material being available.
Fortunately.
Less raw material being available often results in high prices which encourages new growth. This new growth introduces more raw material which lowers the prices. Which in turn results in lower retail prices.
Never fear, if things seem down just wait four years.
All very true, Jacob, but history has shown all sorts of external interference with the Law of Supply and Demand. These include war, pestilence, manipulation by powerful interests, and government. Things usually return to the basic law of supply and demand, but various interferences can disrupt things and cause serious hardship--even starvation.
At the risk of hijacking this thread into a political detour, I'll point out that the ethanol mandate for US gasoline has diverted huge amounts of crops, and cropland, away from food, and demonstrates one such governmental interference. Not only has it increased the price of food (meat, especially), the stuff reduces mileage, increases the expense of gas, and harms engines.
There never was and never will be an economic system that is apolitcal.
Just recently Bayer and Monsanto decided that they would like to join forces in their efforts to modify our food into small fortified meal replacement tablets.
Good old Adam Smith had one thing right. Que Sera Sera. This strikes me more like a climate change discussion than a political discussion. Have we dramatically effected the climate of the earth? Yes. Will it effect us? Yes. Does the earth care? Nope, not even a little bit. 1,000 years for now the earth will be like, come on guys, I need a little CO2 for god's sake.
Until we change our underlining basis for our economy I doubt it will change much.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. If I recall correctly, "climate change" was part of the rationale for the ethanol mandate, but that point is moot now, whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not. Now it's agribusiness and, I daresay, an inflexible government apparatus.
Yes, I think we are both spot on. To many cooks in the kitchen and all that.
Most governments excel at creating problems by trying to solve problems that they have no business trying to solve in the first place.
One of the strongest arguments against alternative energy is the high cost of development. So just subsidize it, right? That'll solve the problem, right?
I'd say give'm a pass, they're just trying to protect us. From ourselves.
One problem is people in authority are more prone than the general population (us peons) to admit they're wrong. I think it's a common human failing, just that when somebody has power and responsibility it kicks in more stubbornly.
That's why I tilt towards the private sector (which is hardly perfect) to provide goods, services, and answers. If a manager or an executive is lousing things up, then, eventually, a higher executive, a board, or the stockholders will step in, not wanting to throw good money after bad. People in authority in government are more insulated from the correction apparatus, especially in the bureaucracy. After all, it's only taxpayers' money, right?
Progressives, before you jump on me, I realize that proofs for "this" and exceptions to "that" abound. I'm speaking in the aggregate.
caffiend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Progressives, before you jump on me, I realize > that proofs for "this" and exceptions to "that" > abound. I'm speaking in the aggregate.
Yeah, I know. No jumping on. I'll just point out that the "private sector," being entirely profit-oriented, is no damn good at things that aren't that profitable, and never will be, but are still really important to *people.* They're no damn good at them because they won't do them. Despite the flaws, that's why some things *are* best done by governments. :)