1. Biblical scale locust infestation in much of Africa, and Asia
2. Floods in East Asia
3. Early winter in Russia, Ukraine, and North China
4. Failed, and missed sowing of grains in much of above regions
5. Shipping disruptions, and resulting food spoilage, and waste
6. Granaries busted, and people burning through many months worth of grain, and flour in much of third world due to initial COVID panic
7. Financial speculators having the best field run on agriculture in decades
8. Anxiety about point 6 repeating runs on food wholesalers again
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/10/nobel-winner-wfp-w...
Not living in an urban environment is not devoid of civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Sahel_drought
they are thought to be becoming more frequent
Also impressive you’ve attempted to resurrect the idea of “civilizing” people.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
You've done it before, and even worse—for example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342816. And generally your account has been making a habit of posting unsubstantively and/or aggressively. We've asked you many times in the past not do to that, and we ban accounts that keep breaking the rules this way. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using HN in the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
Giving hungry people fish obviously isn't a good solution, because then the fish giver becomes a SPOF. But also because the fish giver now has power over the hungry, and some givers will abuse it. Teaching people to fish doesn't work if they're still hungry. It also doesn't work if you're teaching methods that they can't employ. If your solution to the last problem is giving (especially licensing) them means to do fishing, then we're back to square one, with you being SPOF/risk of becoming exploitative.
The solution has to be helping people build self-sufficiency. That may involve giving money, or donating equipment and know-how - but with no strings attached, including non-obvious ones like "you'll have to buy spare parts from us, because your industry can't make them". The goal here is not absolute self-sufficiency (nobody truly has that), but avoiding the situation in which given society's affairs are being managed by outsiders, under threat of starvation or illness.
We've structured society in a way that not everyone needs to be a farmer (or microchip designer/electronic factory line worker) for people to obtain food/devices that access the internet. Are you a proponent of 'give the fish' because you didn't build the device you are typing in?
It's not just food. Lumber, Steel and Oil aswell. https://www.ft.com/content/6a7c232e-9c63-420c-ac05-40aea84a9...
EDIT: noticed link is paywalled (but not when you access via google) alternative article here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKBN2AM... "World shares slide on inflation fears, commodities surge"
Personally, I'm surprise at how robust are the global supply chains that have been able to keep things more or less normal despise what we have been through the last year.
The quantity of reserves created by the Central Banks are irrelevant if they are not spend in the economy. There are two effects to this "printing money": one is that the interest rate goes down facilitating borrowing from the private sector. The second is that governments have the ammunition to spend in stimulus. If the two things happen we could see inflation, but, notice that this the desired effect: compensate for a fall in the normal demand in the economy.
>" [..] central banks over the world have printed an astronomical amount of money. Even though they may state there is no significant inflation, I dont buy it [..]"
It seems to me that, in your model of the world, this should be leading to hyperinflation. If this is the case, my model of the world is wrong and I will make an effort to change it. I wish all the people has been predicting hyperinflation the last 30 years did the same if it doesn't happen. Somehow, I doubt it.
By now, the quantity theory of money based in the fractional reserve banking model should be discredited.
When the rest of the world begins using other systems than the reserve currency to conduct trade, the end result is that the inflation returns home as demand for your currency drops.
Anyway, the "reserve currency" excuse doesn't explain Japan in the last 20 years or the Euro in the last ten. The theory is just wrong. I don't know what more have to happen for people changing their minds.
It's spending what can generate inflation, specifically, spending above what the economy can produce. If Biden tomorrow created a trillion dollar coin and keep it under their bed, there will not be inflation. If the Central Banks create reserves, the interest rate will fall to zero (but not more), and if, despise the low interest rates, nobody is borrowing, there will not be inflation.
That's a failure of competition keeping prices in check, and little else.
The wealthy person you are looking for is Warren Mosler. He retired to the US Virgin Islands many years ago having made a fortune off the back of people who believed in the Quantity Theory of Money
You can read his conclusions in the book "Soft Currency Economics".
We have lots of things to worry about -- inflation isn't one of them.
I really hate this comment. I am worried about not being able to ever being afford a house for my family. Avg income in my neighborhood is ~49k but a 2 bed condo here are selling for 450K and getting outbid by 75k over the asking price. Its insane.
Maybe you already own a house and are happy that prices are up. But its really weird to tell other ppl what they should be worried about.
Sure, and your point about housing prices mattering is a good one (see my other comment on this story). But, this describes maybe a few dozen housing markets. Probably only a couple dozen if you cut out resort/ski towns. It's a regional problem, not systemic problem with the national economy.
It, uh, describes all of Canada actually.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-economy-housing-an...
Also, more Americans live in California than any other state. So if it’s an outlier, it’s an especially impactful one.
Its a national problem
https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market
'few dozen' is what like 3 dozens? Assuming its a problem only in 36 markets. Wouldn't that be a 'national problem' ? 36 markets should covers a majority of population in the country.
E.g., in the Midwest you'd have to be in a nice part of Chicago or choosing the most expensive city neighborhood of a mid-sized city to find a meaningful number of $525K 2 bed condos. And even then, spending that much on a condo is 100% an unnecessary luxury. 10 minutes in any direction prices will crater, and by the time you get to the suburbs starter homes are from the $200s and $525K is a mansion. For the entirety of the midwest and most parts of the south.
Even on the coasts $525K for a 2 bed condo is a Big City thing. E.g., $500-$700K is the going rate for 2 bed condos in most of Boston, but drive an hour away from Boston in any direction? Not so much. Hell, even Wakefield has a 2 bed condo below $300K and that's only a 25 minute drive. And that's one of the more expensive housing markets in the US.
Living 20 minutes from major city centers via public transit has become a luxury, sure. But it's just not accurate to say that $525K for a 2 bed condo is "normal" in the US. It's not. It's quite specific to a very high CoL markets.
When I look at real estate in general in Chicago, it's been dropping a little, not a ton, but it's not like how other are describing the huge increase in housing costs in other parts of the country.
It seems like there are big regional differences going on with housing costs in the US. Supply/demand and policy I'm guessing are making the difference.
This attitude that the market must always go up has never worked out historically, just makes the eventual reckoning that much worse.
Fortunately that mentality means that renters like my wife and I who want our future kids to grow up in a good house in a quality school district can just keep saving money, waiting to capitalize on the inevitable normalization when all the speculators and eggs-in-one-basket people fail to learn from history... again.
Just inflating the bubble further, as every European bank and government is doing, to make existing property owners richer on paper and get their votes, is not a viable long term solution.
IMHO, it can't pop sooner. Houses should be for living, not for speculation and hoarding wealth. The younger generations have been screwed enough by the old established wealth hoarders.
Otherwise, the number of people in that "put their life savings as a downpayment on an overpriced house" category is only going to grow, making the problem worse when the collapse eventually happens.
I think we run into real problems in America trying to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decision making. In addition to being deeply patronising, it eliminates so many of the normal incentives to be responsible and pushes up risk appetite across the board.
If individuals make poor investments (whether on a house or gamestop otm call options) they'll learn their lesson and move on. There's enough of a safety net in America to ensure no one truly goes hungry from bad luck (and before you point to homelessness- that's a complicated issue intertwined with drug addiction, mental illness and in some cases a free lifestyle choice)
Prices are up for multiple reasons, including more pressure on shipping channels due to increased demand for goods across the board.
Also, this article is largely about inflation in developing nations like Indonesia. The inflation noted in countries like the United States is more pedestrian:
> In the U.S., prices rose close to 3% in the year ending Jan. 2, according to NielsenIQ, roughly double the overall rate of inflation.
The market is up 2% YTD, but down 4% from peak. It’s a reasonable time to buy (better than peak, at least).
If you must try to time the market, use time cost averaging to reduce volatility from getting a peak (or trough) price when you enter the market, but know that doing so reduces expected returns. The basic idea is to put 1/n of your money in over the next n weeks.
There are other things like real estate and government contacts, but those are less available to the casual investor, except through stock market funds.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/how-the-young-plan-to-spend-...
It's possible something could set off the market today that accelerates the whole process, like the upcoming supplementary leverage ratio change. Or, the bubble could continue inflating until doesn't. But either way the whole thing is incredibly fragile and much more complicated than the "Stimulus is good for the economy" talk politicians are peddling.
John Hussman has a nice article on the option value of cash. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc201201/
tldr: Suppose I offer you a security that will pay $100 two days from today. You can buy as much of it as you like today at $50, or you can wait until tomorrow. Tomorrow, I’ll flip a coin. If it’s heads, I’ll sell you the security at $99. If it’s tails, I’ll sell you the security at $25. What should you do?
Clearly, if you buy the security today, you’ll double your money two days from now. That’s a 100% expected return for each dollar you invest, over that 2-day period. If you wait, you’ll earn nothing on the first day, but you’ll then have two possibilities. If heads, you’ll get just 1% on your invested money. If tails, you’ll get a 300% return, quadrupling your money. With a 50/50 chance at each, your expected return for every dollar you invest is 0.51% + 0.5300% = 150.5%. So waiting adds 50.5% to your expected return over that 2-day period.
Borders are shut so no backpackers come in, so a lot of fruit died on the field.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/world/australia/agricultu...
It should be noted that the entire industry is notorious for doing every dodgy thing they can get away with, wage theft, rent theft, extreme conditions, so local workers stay as far away from these jobs as they can.
Other industries have done OK though. Wheat grain, for example, is predicted to be pretty average: https://research.csiro.au/graincast/wheat-yield-forecasts/
In Europe, there are seasonal harvests that require surges of workers, who are sometimes legal and sometimes not. For example loads of foreign workers flock to the vineyards in France, Italy or Spain to collect the grapes for winemaking. It's around 3 weeks of work, obviously not worth a permanent contract.
There were very few restrictions in those countries by the time of harvest (September) so wine prices, to my knowledge, have remained largely unaffected, but if it happened otherwise, winemakers would have been, without doubt, lobbying against the restrictions.
You need to take into account that income differences within the EU are enormous. Badly paid job in Germany still translates into very paid job in Bulgaria or Romania. That is why a lot of the seasonal workers come from the Balkans. Within a month they make enough money to live off for several months back home. No qualification needed.
Pay the 400 bucks and you're good for a year.
You can work legally as long as it's no more than 6 months anywhere, and it's pretty easy to get around that.
You can extend your visa for another year if you do 88 days (~3 months) of "farm work" -- doesn't have to be on a farm per se, I know a guy who worked in a hyper-remote rural gas station ("road house").
I worked on a very remote cattle farm digging watering trenches and welding cattle pens. Then hitchhiked across the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpacking_(travel) [2] https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...
Many containers are abandoned in countries that aren't on major routes because they took PPE to those countries, but never bothered to bring the empty containers back.
Also lots of boats moored off the US East and West coasts, plus Europe, waiting of loading/unloading because of delayed supply chains due to COVID.
It's a butterfly or ripple effect of high optimized supply chains being affected by small changes caused by nature/the government throwing a virus shaped spanner in the works.
I wonder how many warehoused things that require power and integrity got damaged.
Seems like a lost opportunity to create so much anxiety with a long piece like this, to then only have this single line to hint at a reason for the rise.
Can anybody more economically minded clarify if this is just post-covid rebound supply chain prices or is this food prices adjusting closer to their 'real' cost?
Also what events do they refer to regarding 'poor weather'?