Another issue is producers hoarding inputs to the production of consumer goods: commodities (corn, wheat, cotton, steel, oil etc.). An example of this is the chip shortage that we're experiencing. Before, most companies would have maybe a month worth of chip inventory. Now, they'd prefer to have at least a year's worth of inventory of chips, to secure both the chip price and their ability to even obtain them. That's more than a 10-fold increase in the demand for chips over a very short period of time.
When commodity prices rise, the exact same pattern occurs for companies that use commodities as inputs. With falling or constant commodity prices (as we've experienced for the past 10 years ), companies have little incentive to have much of an inventory. With increasing commodity prices, the incentive for producers to hoard them is proportional to the rate of increase in their price†. And the more they hoard the more the prices increase, which causes more hoarding etc.
† This is a simplification. Interest rates play an important role here: if the company's annual expected price increase is greater than the interest rate at which they can borrow, then it's profitable for the company to borrow money to buy commodities.
Then everyone does the same, and of course everyone's inflation expectations are vindicated. Rinse, repeat. This is a very tricky trap to get out of. Last time it happened the federal reserve increased the interest rate to 20% and forced a recession just to get inflation back to normal.
I'm not at all convinced that this manoeuvre actually hampered inflation. It might as well have exacerbated it.
When you push up the rate of interest, you make it profitable for businesses whose return on capital is less than the given rate of interest, to liquidate all its assets and deposit the proceeds in a bank account (where you they will earn a greater return on capital). If the given business was producing consumer goods, it was actually helping to keep prices in check. Shutting down this business through the Fed offering its investors free profits -- as opposed to the market offering it profits for producing consumer goods -- doesn't solve the issue of inflation; it makes it worse.
If you in the long run make more money by shutting down your business and put the money in a bank account, then of course, you should do that because it wasn’t a great business to start with. But no one expects the feds to keep the interest rates that high for very long.
It’s only in a near monopoly that a few businesses shutting down will make a big difference on the prices.
But if you shut down businesses, that will increase unemployment, which will keep wages down which will keep the inflation low.
Quite a bit of empirical evidence are by now showing that you are wrong.
The introduction of the Brazilian Real was a surprisingly effective tactic to derail inflation in the previous currency; changing over the currency and promising "this time it's different" actually worked.
> Last time it happened the federal reserve increased the interest rate to 20%
This technique has since been refined and central banks have got really good at controlling inflation through rates. The cost is borne through unemployment being kept above the "NAIRU".
It's common for wages to be contractually indexed to prices, so that they are automatically updated to reflect changes in the cost of living. See here, for some examples: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/mb200805_focus05.en....
Only for an initial transient. One is a measure of stock and the other of flow.
edit: Not that I love the AEI I think this is one of the most important pictures of the 21st century:
With mass media begin projected from every flat surface, less and less people are actually 'reading' (and I don't consider doom scrolling Facebook to be 'reading'), so we are one large ash pile away from the core message of the book.
It takes a lot longer to put out an inflammatory book and it's harder to actually write one, because it has to be a whole book, not just 3 paragraphs. There was a lot less data easily accessible, meaning you had to have instincts of a seasoned craftsman or luck. The medium itself really did help us out for a long time.
It's not entirely an unfair point in the sense clearly a modern car with modern safety and electronics costs more to produce (hence the cost basis). But as far as I know the BLS is basically given free reign to invent the cost basis.
Why doesn't it make sense to you that this particular basket of goods can rise in price, on average, 2.25% pear year while individual goods in the basket can either fall in price or rise much faster?
Additionally, from my own point of view, it doesn't feel to me car prices dropped in inflation-adjusted dollars. This could be a mistaken feeling though.
This graph seems to say cars increased in dollars pretty steadily from 2014 to 2021:
Maybe that's just people switching from sedans to SUVs though. That could also be responsible for my feeling of the inflation-adjusted price not changing, if I was looking at sedans in the past but SUVs now.
Younger generations keep citing cheap housing of older generations. One of the differences is that in 1800, I could chop down some wood, and put up a home, with no electricity, plumbing, or much of anything else. Basic shelter was available to anyone willing to do the work of building a log cabin, and who can afford an axe.
In 2021, the baseline cost includes everything from inspections and licensing, to fancy manufactured insulation, to sophisticated plumbing, to meeting fire codes. It's worth reading about the legal troubles of people trying to live off-grid.
Same thing with cars. If I could, I'd buy a 2021-equivalent to a VW Bug, but I can't.
There's a mandatory minimum standard of living.
This has all sorts of cascading impacts, not the least of which are the power dynamics of wage slaves lacking a BATNA.
nimos's second link says that cars stayed the exact same price in numerical dollars, meaning cars should the same price they did today as they did in the past. You seem to be saying cars have gone up in price. There's a contradiction.
A 1980 Dodge Aspen cost under $5000, and was a large sedan capable of carrying 6 passengers. From a consumer's point of view, a comparable car today -- something suitable for transporting a family with three kids -- is around $20,000, so about 3% annual inflation.
On the other hand, a 2021 Kia Soul or Chevy Trailblazer have features which wouldn't exist on a 1980 vehicle, or only be available on super-luxury models, so if they sold in 1980, they'd probably be $20k. Zero inflation. They have:
* Crumple zones
* Air bags
* Much better gas mileage
* Power windows
* Touch screens
* Various driver-assist systems
* Cell phone connectivity / bluetooth
* ... and so on
It depends on how you squint; data can paint either conclusion. On a related note, if you wanted a 2021 car with the same amount of steel as a Dodge Aspen, you'd be looking at a lot more than $20k; cars back then were built in ways which required a lot more material (an upside being maintainability; you could pop the hood and do a lot of work yourself).
It's kind of a weird comparison, because it makes it seem like people less in inflation-adjusted dollars, when in fact that's not true.
How do you compare a house build to 1900 standards to one build to 2020 standards? How do you compare fresh foods from the local farmer to factory-manufactured ones?
People shift preferences based on prices too. Manufactured goods started out as premium products, and now, fresh foods are increasingly a premium product.
It's an impossible problem. People either do their best, or lie with statistics, depending on the domain.
Note that this process is not a hedonic adjustment, it's a production cost adjustment, which is what is used to deflate the price of cars.
A graph comparing dollars/pixel of TVs to the price of college doesn't make sense to me.
edit, to be more precise: I looked at January to September for 2019, 20 and 21, and the difference was < 100€ over that timeframe.
And, AFAIK, it's the same in North America, with the US having the lowest consumer prices and highest salaries while neighboring Canada has to make due with higher prices and lower wages.
My point is, the perceived expense of goods varies wildly based on your region's economic leverage, so large, rich countries with powerful economies and huge supply chains tend to be much better off at dampening these effects than the rest.
At this point our only saving grace is the rent increase freeze my province enacted due to COVID. I'm "saving" ~$100/month because of that.
* edit: this is over the past ~18 months we've seen this increase
Aside from mince, I can't think of any grocery product that has had a substantial price increase in the last couple of years.
I noticed that we spend more on groceries too, but mostly because we've both been working from home more, and we've also compensated the lack of going out for dinner with slightly more expensive shopping.
My toothpaste at walmart is $1 for a 6.5oz tube. My old shampoo is currently 88c for 12oz. The one I switched to - nioxin, is $20 for 16oz.
Things at the grocery store are dirt cheap in the US compared to any country in Europe. And the salaries are more. Unless we're talking Ukraine and friends, where carrots and potatoes are pretty much free (while meat is of lower quality and higher price). But they're definitely much, much cheaper than where you are. Hand-trimmed chicken breast, without the rib meat, is $2/lb. Electronics - your price number in EUR is our number. But in USD.
source: I have been to every EU country for work, and lived in several long-term. And am originally from Europe.
Grocery and basic goods prices can vary significantly around the US. I live in a rural area where groceries are expensive as hell, in part because a european-owned supermarket chain has been buying up property that could be used for grocery stores, slapping deed restrictions on it that make it unusable for a grocery store, and then putting it back on the market.
Meanwhile I go on vacation to another rural area and groceries are cheap as hell...
It's a wide-spread tactic in the grocery industry.
Likely, prices are high because population is super low, and people can buy real cheap at farmer markets where they just sell direct. European grocery stores buying up property in some rural area? That's called a conspiracy theory - blame problems of low population and no easy highway access, because we refuse to vote for taxes that pay for infrastructure on those scheming socialists an ocean away.
Next time when your personal incredulity finds something unbelievable, instead of assuming you must be right and the other person is wrong, just try a simple google search.
In my area property is constrained and in high demand so deed restrictions that only block one industry don't inhibit sales much.
Our population is not "super low"; our county has a third of the population of the largest city in our region of the US.
> people can buy real cheap at farmer markets where they just sell direct
Just because I said "rural" doesn't mean there's farmland.
So unless you can post a source of your claim - euro grocer pissing away millions by devaluing rural properties, the search link you posted so far quite literally proved you wrong.
$20 for 8 special dietary hamburger buns.
88 cents for 8 hamburger buns. yes, eight store brand buns for under a dollar.
"That blue race car has a low suspension making it hard to drive on the streets."
"Wrong, the car is a navy color, very misleading example."
Yes, the most expensive at the walmart physical store are $7-8 for 8 after tax. The point of the example is that 60 buns are a hundred bucks. The guy never said how many buns he bought. There are 8 per package, he could have bought 3 boxes. The example is that not given quantity the price could be anything, and the OP's post where he gives a total for an unknown quantity or brand of anything, is not useful to support a claim that prices went up.
Buying food from third parties online is not the same as in store.
If that 28 buck cost stems from all his ultrapremium/expensive brands, that's on him, not inflation.
- Shampoo: ~8oz
- Pack of burger buns: 6 pieces
- Ground coffee: bag of 2 pounds
- Chocolate bar: probably the same as everywhere
So that's definitely realistic.
I do agree with the point that food price inflation is real but there are so many varieties of the same product that it's hard to compare random examples.
Having eaten both 85p ready meals and £4+ ones, the products are clearly not the same either.
I wasn't implying the versions are the same, merely highlighting that comparing the cost of random items is somewhat nuanced.
These days a hand basket with just a handful of things and I always end up paying $90-$100. Inflation is scary out of control last few years.
Shampoo companies need to pay their software engineers 340k too. /s
I'm not against a higher minimum wage. I'm less for these 'covid' checks that go out that a lot of people don't need. But, both of these things mean higher prices for everyone else.
For people upset at this comment: It's literally taught in ECON 101.
Furthermore, nobody should forget that the subject of such policies is people. Not just numbers on a spreadsheet going up or down, but real life people who could need to eat, might have children to take care of, need a roof over their heads etc.
It is quite obvious if you take a look at any online crypto/stock trading forum that a lot of those extra stimulus checks are not going towards anything useful. We know from basic economics which you seem to think is invalid that increasing the money supply (through deficit spending on stimulus checks) and money velocity (by giving it to consumers directly instead of through e.g. increasing the supply of credit) increases inflation. We're also seeing record demand for consumer goods like PS5s, electronics, etc. Those happen to be the same products that consumers with excess money buy. Not food, because they can already afford food without the stimulus checks.
2) I definitely don't think I know everything, or anything really.
3) When a very basic idiom taught in entry level economics proves true again and again, I'm not sure how much complexity is required to prove it false. At that point it just feels like fighting for the point of fighting.
I don't want to debate goods and bads, economic complexities, etc. I am just stating what is taught in entry level classes appears to be correct.
The covid check was economic stimulus. Like what Bush W did for example. It literally stimulates the economy every time, because for every one of you and me who don't need it and save it, by investing it in companies via mutual funds, there are people who immediately spend it on things like food, also giving money to companies.
Now here's what happens when you don't give money to companies: they have to take loans with interest. That interest is later paid by customers via increased prices, because the supply side cost is now higher.
Companies also go out of business w/o money. You now have less supply, for inelastic demand (because it's food). This increases prices.
So, econ101: prices went up. Because supply chains were affected by the pandemic, and when supply cost goes up, you pay more. If you didn't have the stimulus checks, they would have gone up more. Much more.
Paying attention in econ101 helps know this. What you missed by not paying attention, is they were referring to printing money and Not giving it to people. Like the government having to fund itself, or the king funding himself. A stimulus check is trickle up economics, and Lowers prices. So econ101 taught us the opposite of your takeaway from that class. That class was of course called microeconomics, not econ101.
> A stimulus check is trickle up economics, and Lowers prices.
How, in your mind, does this sentence make any sense? Don't worry you can really lay into me, I won't reply.
If Biden forgives student loans is that going to lower the price of tuition?
since the point of the program was to stimulate production of New cars, which it did, creating an increase in GDP and jobs, the experiment was a success.
If Biden forgives student loans it will not lower the price of tuition. Since the point of student loan forgiveness is to help people get on their feet, and buy houses and cars, it not lowering the price of tuition would also mean a success.
I'm guessing you have a house mortgage. If I pay that off for you, will it lower the price of your house? I guess there's no point in doing it then. Because you wouldn't take that monthly mortgage payment and instead buy more stuff or invest in stocks, boosting the economy. You would clearly spend it on sponsoring a super-spreader own-the-libs rally.
This applies during a pandemic, when the companies doing the supply are going out of business, and when the demand side is out of a job and out of money to spend with those companies.
But, since my first explanation, which is exactly the same as what I retyped here, was not read by you beyond an out of context sentence, I have a very good idea about how your brain works, and why it still makes no sense to you. Now talk a bit about why the vaccine is a plot to take away our freedom. I'm here for the entertainment.
I ask because I'm unfamiliar with the basic curriculum in economics, although in the sciences some of the early concepts that we are taught include:
* Correlation is not causation
* Confirmation bias should be overcome by posing relevant testable questions rather than relying on anecdotes.
Except "your basic idiom" actually turns out to not be true in a lot of cases. It turns out that when you look at cases of notable inflation, these are nearly always accompanied by substantial supply side shocks, and that's also happening now.
For a good research article of a related example, see https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9160/revisions/c....
There is no practical way that handing out more money is going to create more resources. In theory there might be one, but in practice the globe just shut down percentages of the economy in response to the coronavirus. There are still policies in place where people willing and able to work are being mass-ejected from their jobs. Add money handouts to that and the only way to be surprised if prices go up is to be not paying any attention to anything economic.
Assuming that printing money automatically leads to inflation is assuming a lot of things such as all actors constantly making decisions based on the total supply of money, factories running at 100% of their capacity, the money being reinjected into the real economy and a ton of other over simplifications.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no serious work proving the existence of a direct cause-effect relationship between money printing and inflation in the real world. (Using historical data instead of an oversimplified model)
Actually, the euro zone increased its money supply by 5 since the 2000s, prices have only been multiplied by 1,4.
Hyperinflation is a different story, but those things are not caused by printing a few trillions.
Is it linear? No.
Is it the only possible cause? No.
Is it a cause? I think the obvious answer is yes, but obvious answers have been wrong before.
Look at the stock market and real estate and tell me there's no link between the money printing and inflation.
Helicopter money (1) does cause inflation, but the reason that the inflation has been stubbornly low for a decade is precisely because the central banks are forbidden from doing helicopter money
When was the last time the Federal Reserve balance sheet went down?  And if it's of equal value, why doesn't someone want to buy it from them?
Giving people money not to work results in more money and less production. But there's a bunch of people with money, so demand is higher than it'd otherwise be.
In any case, do you have any proof that more food is bought? I'm having a hard time believing this, unless people were lacking food previously.
If they didn't spend that money on food, how did those prices increase? Which parts of the stuff that goes into food increased? Links to actual data is severely missing from all the assertions made here. A moderate one-time stimulus check is responsible, really? Because all that other money that was created was not given to many people and I would like to see some data if you want to claim it ended up with them anyway by now. General wide-spread wage increases of according size, for example.
So, food prices can go up and down even if food-specific demand is inelastic (that is, even if people eat the same amount and quality of food regardless of price).
FWIW I've found my food demand not to be 100% inelastic -- I have changed where I get fast food as a result of some price increases, and I've found that in times when I'm not making a steady income, I find it easier to maintain or lose weight.
We have supply chains disorganized because COVID, bad crops and, specially, crazy energy prices (that affect everything).
How could prices not go up?
or this is what happens when central banks reduce and keep interest rates at record low levels and destroy savings kept in a bank.
The addiction the American economy has to stimulus is not unlike a heroin addict. If you were to cut government spending drastically, or raise interest rates dramatically, the economy would suffer terrible withdrawals and most likely cease to function. Conversely, if you stay the course and continue with both fiscal and monetary stimulus, the economy will overdose, most likely causing it to cease to function.
I do not envy our politicians and central bankers. They are screwed either way. And I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them flee the country when the US Balkanizes.
Interest rates are low because investors and savers accept them to be low. If they were truly too low then companies would borrow and invest until full employment happens and wages go up at which point inflation would go up and so would the interest rate.
No such thing happens. Germany has a debt brake and low debt to GDP because they are scared of the interest boogeyman and the only thing that happened is that the yield is zero or negative for every duration up to 30 year government bonds. A lot of people want to save money nowadays which puts downward pressure on interest rates.
If you were to raise interest rates then savers would save even more and the economy wouldn't die from withdrawal effects, it would die from a plain lack of money in the real part of the economy because saving money would be more profitable than doing real work.
Or maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.
But chances are it wasn't because of stimulus checks.
I don't know if it's even possible to answer whether a god exists, but it's quite easy to find the flaws in religious stories, and if anyone can answer that question, it's certainly not them.
Are the prices increasing since the hedge funds are investing there (after exiting normal stock market), or because suddenly people started to eat more?
Central banks just gave a lot of empty money to the rich: central bank is now holding thr bag of overpriced stock, while the rich exited and invest in resources.
This you wont even learn in advanced econ lessons, because actions of central banks are barely questioned.
Do you truely belive that poor people suddenly started to eat more?
Other reasons can be a drop in production (e.g. due to Brexit nobody wants to do bavk braking farm work), rising population and aspirations (people from third world also want smartphones, cars and good food), biofuel - which means less area used for food production.. but no, people who received some stimulus chcecks suddenly started to eat more.
Do explain. The cost of essentials is not affected by how much money people have to spend on it.
I mean, richer areas may attract more high-end grocery stores like Whole Foods or whatever, but the base price of food - what this index is about - is not affected by that.
If people can't afford groceries anymore, is that because they have too much money?
There are two issues at play here. One is that everyone has more money, and two is how everyone got more money.
Skipping one altogether, two explains most cost increases. When wages rise, it cost more to make everything. Because labor costs are higher. The farmer wants more money, the butcher wants more money, the drivers want more money, the stockers want more money, and the sellers well, they always want more money. When you double their wages, as what's been happening in the lower wage section recently, those costs affect the product. This is what many people miss about the minimum wage debate. If a guy stocking cans at the grocery makes 10 and hour, and the guy digging coal out of a mine makes 20 an hour, what happens when minimum wage goes up to 20? Of course the coal diggers want more money too, or else they'll take the easier job. This alone accounts for 'essentials.'
Going back to one again. The issue isn't that an individual person has more money. It's that -everyone- does. So it's not a rich person buying up extra, it's people that normally wouldn't buy a product enter the market.
Regardless what others have alluded to, a rise in demand always means a rise in prices. It's basic supply demand curves that have been studied forever.
An anecdote, rather unrelated: Supply demand curves aren't always what they seem.
A pizza place could turn a profit selling pizzas for a few bucks. Demand initially surges, then recedes as people get sick of it. Turns out, it's worth more to price it so that people only sometimes buy it.
Politics used to be about compromise. Nowadays it is about wasting as much time as possible, while not making any meaningful policy changes. This will come back to bite our elected officials at all levels.
No, but you are probably middle or upper class in a western country (I'm guessing the US). But there are other countries in the world where half of your income goes to food. For them rising food prices is a catastrophe.
If not then it is only a matter of time. A new charismatic leader who says the right things emerges, and system is pushed to breaking point. The US might be the first, but Trump's lasting legacy will be proving to the world that politics can be played this way.
This is only really true in FPTP systems. In any of the transferable vote or alternative vote systems that's far less of a problem.
Meanwhile, in my country a political party only needs 2% of the vote to be represented in parliament and this will grant them approximately 2% of the seats since we use a proportional system. When people know that their votes likely won't be wasted, they tend to not vote tactically, preferring to vote on issues instead.
Anyway, I mostly hear people in FPTP countries (US and UK) talk about transferable vote or alternative vote, but AFAIK these are not really in common use. I think most of Europe uses the party-list system for proportional representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_repres...).
Obviously this applies only if your party has less than 50% of the votes, but in multi-party democracies its more unusual for one party to have 50% (or more) of the votes.
I have no opinion on that as an alternative for two parties systems, just found it interesting and an often neglected part of the conversations.
In a republic the head of state is usually directly elected; in a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is usually hereditary. Whether the head of state has any real power varies greatly.
The head of government (e.g. the prime minister) is most often NOT directly elected at all, since most multiparty democracies apply parliamentarism, i.e. the parliament has the power to select and remove the head of government.
So the voters focus on voting for parliament members and the head of government is INDIRECTLY elected by the winning _coalition_, so the head of government usually represents a coalition rather than a party. This a bit more dynamic as the coalition can change in between elections when parties realign, sometimes resulting in a new head of government or an early election.
FPTP actively pushes people towards a two-party system, because any other vote lets in the people you dislike most.
In the beginning of COVID pandemic, both Germany (one of the biggest and "slowest" EU country) and US passed very comprehensive laws to counter the pandemic crash. There was very strong bipartisan support, because (1) something needed to be done, and (2) the solution seemed quite obvious.
Since then, there has been disagreement about both whether anything needs to be done, and about what exactly that is; hence, nothing has happened.
In contrast to common fear-mongering, this is democracy working as it should - broadly agreed-upon things happen quickly, contentious things happen slowly or not at all.
Hopefully you don't get one where you live, but in a globalized economy, it doesn't have to be 'where you live' to affect you.
But I see your point, the US (I'm assuming?) is stuck in political impasse.
No it will mostly bite the lower classes among their constituents.
It should, but as recent years have shown, consequences for bad decisions from the higher-ups are laughable and they get away with anything. Democracy is in shambles, and the checks and balances are nowhere to be found.
The balance has been disturbed and we're heading to a global crisis. And things like energy and food prices - you know, essentials like that - will likely affect the average joe harder than any stock market crash did.
Of course Denmark also has the highest food prices in Europe already ( https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/nyt/NytHtml?cid=32175 ), so probably that is why whenever I go to the store nowadays I feel like I'm getting ripped off.
Only 2.5 to 3.2 percent?! That would be great if it were actually the case in the real world, but the government provided inflation numbers a pretty much b.s. these days as the formula and items used for the calculation are always charry-piked by the government to make the final number look good to their voters otherwise they'll be ripped apart come the next election (which politician in their right mind would like telling the citizens that they're all worse off and expect nothing bad to happen? Much worse off).
For the real-world inflation numbers just look at assets like stocks or real estate that have shot up +20% or more.
Your cartoonish idea of a minister of economics making a phone call to tell some bureaucrat to fudge the numbers is very far from reality.
In some developing countries stuff like this happens and there are unofficial numbers being published by journalists or dissidents which are closer to reality, but this is really not be how things work in the EU or US.
Like how it conveniently excludes real estate prices (as if having a roof over your head to raise a family in, is some opulent frivolity instead of a necessity) but instead includes stuff like the price of the cheapest possible bread which often stays low for longer at the cost of reduced quality.
My point is, you can always choose your metrics well enough to reach a certain target if that's the desired outcome, which is what the whole inflation index has become. Same how my boss can pick my yearly performance targets that can make me either "exceed expectations" or he can choose targets that will make me "need improvement", for the same amount of work I do.
Really. Higher than here, Norway?
>For cereal production, FAO projected a record world crop of 2.800 billion tonnes in 2021, up slightly from 2.788 billion estimated a month ago.
So the prices are not wholly related to production, nor mere supply and demand. The shipping container shortage, labor shortages in many countries are more significant contributors.
Where in the production chain is the item whose scarcity triggers a bidding war?
More companies or expanding companies vying for more raw material / services leads to higher demand from suppliers (hence the bidding GP mentioned).
There are likely other mechanisms in play too, and probably much simpler ones than this, but this was the first mechanism to cross my mind when seeing your question.
the overall effects can have pretty subtle origins but can ripple through gradually. the worst part about this is, if it happens long enough, inflation can more or less become a sustained expectation and grab a life of its own.
The UK's main supplier of fertiliser has actually stopped production because of the rising cost of gas.
How can use be higher than a record-year's production? Did they mean "demand" or they actually meant "use"?
>The busiest US container ports are moving up the global rankings amid record import volumes, but the deluge of cargoes continues to exceed capacity with growing ship queues on both the East and West Coasts.
This is why. Last month was a local minima.
Worry not, they're already fucking up my country realestate market.
There's a general growing feeling that we're being pushed out of our own country - I don't think this is going to end well.
You can check "princess of yen" ( https://youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dp5Ac7ap_MAY ) which is one of the few sources that talks about it.
And the saying that "QE is going withot serious inflation" is a joke - people literally cannot afford homes since investment funds got bailed out (central bank is holding the bag) - and now those funds have free cash to buy out anything: homes, resources..
The Federal Reserve is the biggest whale in the market and the majority of their purchasing transactions create USD that did not exist prior to the time of transaction. Every recipient circulating new USD around. The bigger problem being that most does not circulate from the first recipient, but also a large amount does and the pandemic relief bills allowed different kinds of recipients to get newly created Federal Reserve USD who did wildly circulate those USD causing massive distortions in different areas of the economy.
For me the most obvious explanation is export of inflation from USA: USA printed abnormal amount of unsecured money, and since USD is a world reserve currency, prices begin to rise everywhere. USA doesn't produce enough goods and services to offset the amount of money they print. With every start of their money printer the whole world becomes more poor.
I wish there would be a way to somehow disconnect the cancer tumor of USD from the rest of the world. But I'm not an economist and don't know the way to do it and what if the owner of the next currency chosen for reserve currency start to exploit its position for their own benefit like USA now.
> For me the most obvious explanation is export of inflation from USA:
No, its just the wealth of the USA and how much the US throws into the trash. The US literally bids up world food prices and both eats a lot and also destroys a lot.
> With every start of their money printer the whole world becomes more poor.
That...makes no sense. There are some countries domestically using the dollar, but for most of the world that would just drive down the dollar against the local currency; even if inflation made people poorer in general in the system using the currency (it doesn't, except people with assets fixed in the currency), it wouldn't make people using other currencies poorer.
My country produces gas, oil, lumber, food, metals. When USA prints another few billions, they can simply come to any company producing these resources, and offer higher price. Because the money doesn't cost US anything: they just printed them.
For the local company it makes more sense to sell to the US customer at higher price than to local customer at lower price in local currency.
So, when US prints another billion, it means that local companies experience resource shortages and rising prices, because everything is exported to USA.
To add insult to injury, money earned by the exporters almost never end up in the local economy. Exporter just hoard them in offshore banks.
This scheme of things is extremely beneficial for the US economy and inimical to all other economies in the world.
I mean I can't even blame those who voted to leave, they were not informed and convinced by a massive propaganda campaign. But I can blame the politicians that pushed ahead with it, even though it was based on a small majority vote in a non-binding and un-nuanced referendum. These politicians should have done better and they knew better, they of all people should be able to grasp the larger / longer term effects.
I mean some people voted to leave because they don't like eastern-Europeans, immigrants and refugees, not realizing they're a backbone of infrastructure. People don't like when "they tuk er jerbs", but they're not willing or able to drive a truck themselves.
At the time I was one of the people doubting the policy of giving people free money as "pandemic relief" instead of just ending the lockdowns and letting small business owners and employees engage in society at their own (relatively small) risk. I was accused of being ignorant and selfish.
Now the chickens have come home to roost and there are people raising concerns for how this will affect the poor when it was likely those very same people who supported the policies that have caused this inflation in the first place! Ironically if we had listened to the "selfish rich westerners" who opposed the policy of unchecked "pandemic relief" for the poor there would be no current looming threat to the poor.
Many who claim to care for the poor will read this comment and continue to accuse me of being selfish and ignorant without the least bit of self-introspection on how their own worldview contributed to this very situation. That is the reason that inflation will only continue to worsen and the poor will be in an ever worse situation.
I think we need some economic reform otherwise it is going to be harsh. Just printing money as much as we want is not a solution.
I think it will all come to a head soon enough, and housing affordability is just about the first thing I'd be tackling.
FWIW as you claim west "has become selfish" can you name a period, say, in the last two centuries when 'the west' would have been less selfish - I mean it looks to me like west has always been 'selfish'. I think as 'we in the west' are generally brought up to believe unselfishnes is a virtue we as children believe our societies express this value in all of our endeavours. As we grow up we realize our rich societies don't really work in a way that would facilitate egalitarianism across whole mankind.
That said, geopolitics are hard and problems should not be assigned to some basic, unredeamable sin of avarice but preferably to actionable things that can be changed.
If you could have sold it instead?
Maybe not noble but also probably kind to some degree whatever your motivations are for being kind.
Giving someone something you have no obligation to give them for free is literally the definition of generous. It is the opposite of selfish.
This doesn't change if you take care of yourself first.
A: Because western countries hold patents on the vaccines and we prioritize profit over lives.
The AZ/British vaccine is being provided at cost
> AstraZeneca is one of the shining stars of the pandemic. Not only did it produce a vaccine where other big players failed, the UK-Swedish company has pledged to sell it at cost until it is able to declare the pandemic over.
If countries still can't afford it they are being given away
> the UK has pledged to donate 100 million vaccines overseas by June 2022, 80 million of which will go to COVAX
Many countries could produce these vaccines, but are not legally allowed to because we're protecting the patents, so that companies can make profit on them. Without patent protection, they wouldn't be the only companies manufacturing them.
It's also strange to say it's entirely false, while giving one example in which the vaccines are being given at cost. Many of the vaccines are not. In some cases the companies are not profiting, in other cases they are.
And as an aside, modern capitalism as it stands right now almost necessitates some group be exploited in order to produce cheap labor/goods for consumption for another wealthier group, and the exploited group is most often a poorer country and the goods/labor are then imported. You're not gonna get very far paying your workforce a living wage to produce things that people making that same living wage need to buy, not with the percentage of profit modern owners/shareholders take right off the top.
edit: And that's just more modern examples exploitation, Western society didn't suddenly spring forth into existence in it's current state of being. If you wanna talk about how exactly Western society reached its current level of wealth and privilege I'm more than happy to talk about that as well.
> And as an aside, modern capitalism as it stands right now almost necessitates some group be exploited in order to produce cheap labor/goods for consumption for another wealthier group, and the exploited group is most often a poorer country and the goods/labor are then imported.
Which certainly does not follow from the articles you linked.
Moreover if we are talking about South korea, they have benefited from US backing.
"International relations between South Korea and the United States commenced in 1950, when the United States helped establish the modern state of South Korea, also known as the Republic of Korea, and fought on its UN-sponsored side in the Korean war" 
Of course they are fully developed now and may not depend on US backing. Even Japan after WW2 was helped by the US in reconstruction 
So in essence unless one of the "developed" countries helps you get a head start, you either develop slowly or not at all. Since all the tech and trade agreements are controlled by the established dominant players
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea%E2%80%93United_Sta...
 - https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconst...
Seriously, people are in colonialism denial now?
All of the colonizer countries were much wealthier and technologically advanced before they started colonizing. The disparities were already enormous in 1500, before much of colonization happened. English, Dutch and Spanish became colonizers because they were more developed, not the other way around.
The “plunderers” had way more resources than the “plundered”: look at the trade volumes between England and its Indian colonies, and compare them with the volumes of domestic production in England: the latter has always been orders magnitude bigger than the former. It’s even more lopsided with African colonies.
Next, the little that the colonizers got out of the colonies were not “treasures” that were “plundered”, hindering development by victims of colonization. Spanish got a lot of silver from Argentina, but the silver was basically worthless to the natives, and had they kept all of it, they could’ve made more plates and jewelry, which in no way could have made them richer and more developed. In fact, metal oriented policy of Spain probably was detrimental to them too. But, if not the Spanish, the indigenous would not have worked Potosi mines anyway, so it’s moot. Most of physical resources that colonizers removed from colonies were like that: of what value are minerals in the ground, if the natives cannot extract them or make use of them?
Most of the actual use of colonies was cultivation of land and exploitation of human labor, often forced. These were overwhelmingly seriously underutilized by the natives. It should not need to be said, but knowing how obstinate some people are here, I’ll say it anyway: this underutilization in no way justifies colonization. Rather, the point is that the colonizers did not “plunder” land from colonies (because you can’t carry it away), and the amount of labor exploited was in almost all cases very small relative to the total workforce of the natives.
Finally, there are many countries that successfully developed without serious colonization effort. Consider Germany: it had some colonies, but only got them in late 1800s, and only keep them for three decades. It would be ridiculous to argue that Germany is now rich and developed thanks to these three crucial decades 1890-1920, when they held some colonies in Africa. In fact, they not only did not get wealthy by exploiting these, but most likely it was a net loss to them, considering the expense required to set them up.
All of this is not meant to excuse or justify colonization. Clearly, conquering and subjugating other nations by military force is wrong, according to our today’s moral standards. The point here is that the idea that it was the colonies that allowed some nations to become wealthy and developed, is simply wrong, and betrays lack of familiarity with economic history of the world.
It exploited the "we have nice capitalism"-wall build against socialism. Basically all along the border, there was a gradient to be exploited for starting up. I assume alot of players near china are waiting for the same sort of ladder to climb up on, once the 2nd cold war starts.
Even if they build vaccines, it is not held to the same standard, for ex: India's covaxin was not being accepted for travel to western countries. The dominant players set all the rules.
Unless we understand why/how we are in this situation, we will keep on making the same mistakes again and again
My understanding is that Israel paid well above market to go to the front of the line, Japan is definitely paying for doses... do you have links to authoritative primary sources on this (e.g., not a news organization or activist group)?
(I don't know, so I'm actually curious here)
> do you have links to authoritative original sources on this (e.g., not a news organization
...What. The. What.
E.g. (first alphabetically (Africa > Angola)):
>The United States continues to make great strides in its efforts to distribute safe and effective vaccines globally. We are happy to announce our donation of 1,182,870 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to Angola on August 24 with our partners GAVI and the African Union.
The countries that would need vaccine donations can be generally found at the end of the said list with least GDP:s.
Some would say it's a way for the west to buy influence rather cheaply.
Plenty of journalists have been covering shifting spending patterns since the early days of the pandemic, and its effects on economic sectors and local, regional, and national economies.
> not redistributing vaccines
Over a billion doses pledged.
> vs vaccinating kids
> and getting third shots in
What..."third....shots"....? Boosters for the single-shot vaccines that have turned out to greatly diminish in effectiveness.
Looking through your comment history shows this comment isn't the first time you've been remarkably poorly informed, to put it politely:
"more kids die from traffic crashes", you say, and whine about how people think you're anti-vax. Nah, you're objectively, provably wrong, as demonstrated by someone in that thread, and yet here you are a day or two later still whining about how we're wasting resources "vaccinating kids."
Nevermind that you seem to think that we shouldn't vaccinate people until more of them die from COVID than traffic collisions (which for many age groups is the top cause of death)?
You are stunningly poorly informed every time you write a comment here.
You are often wrong, have poor logic/reasoning skills, and maybe you are not qualified to be forming strong opinions about the things you are talking about, at least until you make some effort to educate yourself from objective, fact-based sources, instead of just believing conservative memes you see on Facebook because they fit your worldview.