No. I'm not. New England is pretty much unique. It is however a "check-off" box on my "we're doomed" list. A canary in the mine, if you like.
The fact that you see New England as a canary in a coal mine contradicts the claim that it is "pretty much unique." Also, given your first reference to it as proof that the world is doing fine, then it's not a canary in a coal mine for "we're doomed."
Our definitions of "fine" may be the underlying cause of the disagreement and point of view discrepancy.
Your definition of "fine" is based on your "area" (as seen in your subsequent paragraph). My definition is based on global data. Which one is more logical?
Fine, to me, is the HEB grocery, having flour, salt, and yeast on its shelves in my area. If that holds true, things are fine. Fine doesn't imply millions aren't dieing somewhere from some cause; fine doesn't imply bubblescale employment; fine doesn't imply growth, prosperity, or dancing on Main Street. (those joyful things are gone, FOREVER) Its a very selfish view of course, but we're long past the point where the Malthusian result could be avoided. As something that is inevitable, I do not lament wildly and rail against the immovable. The point of the game of life at the moment is to do everything you can to prevent one's child(ren) from being crushed by the coming result.
I already dealt with the first point, but the rest makes no sense to me. Just because predicaments are "immovable" doesn't mean that my referring to them is wrong.
If this thread was about philosophical views of the future, then I'd welcome your argument, i.e., worry about your loved ones and surroundings rather than what is happening elsewhere. But it doesn't in any way counter any of my arguments.
If they are not dieing of starvation at $2/day, food is cheap.
If you cannot afford other basic needs, then food is not cheap.
This is a core disagreement, though I do share some blame as I leave off "per capita" in places that I shouldn't. From Accounting experience, I can prove to myself directly and simply why NOMINAL (the absolute number of $ without regard to purchasing power) increase is fundamentally required. Basic evaluation of balance sheets and inventory/cost of goods sold and depreciation require it, and with the speed of current debt turnover in the commercial markets, if the NOMINAL growth goes away, things go belly up, very, very quickly. But per capita real growth is much less urgent, and not really required, though its loss is certainly unpleasant for the markets.
Production and consumption of goods have been rising worldwide for several decades as part of a global capitalist system. The same goes for money supply. The use of accounting or referring to nominal increases do not contradict that reality.
Oil demand is currently only driving price, production has basically peaked, thus the nominal cost is rising, and the PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION IS FALLING.
Oil demand isn't the only factor that's driving price. It's not just the nominal cost that is rising. And if "per capita consumption is falling," then "oil demand" cannot be "only driving price."
"Speculation" is always the villain trotted out to gain approval of the masses. I'm completely unimpressed by it though. Futures prices of high demand and consumption commodities like grain and oil are not artificially high or low as a result of people buying and selling futures contracts on them. Its called price discovery. No one can know what the value of a bushel of wheat will be twelve months from now, the only way to find out, is to bid it around and see what a willing buyer and willing seller can agree on. Some call this "speculation", but in absence of evidence of collusion (which should be brutally prosecuted), this bidding process is how the price of the commodity can be discovered such that both farmers will plant, and final buyers will buy and accept delivery.
Of course, you are not completely unimpressed. You base the global situation only on your "area," remember? But the articles that I have presented to you, plus the various threads in this forum, show a different picture.
You sure are locked on New England (which I use as the butt of many jokes...) So I find this really funny in a weird way. But no, the world is nothing like New England.
Or the opposite, given what you said at the start of your message. If there's anything that's "really funny in a weird way," it's such.
You think a futures contract is something that doesn't exist?
That hurts my head.
Actually, it's the other way round: I should be asking that question to you, especially given your claim that you are "completely unimpressed" by the effects of speculation. With that, it's my head that should be hurting, not yours.
Well, we really do agree about alot; we disagree about intention, and cause and effect, and what constitutes the acceptable result.
What I do know is that you end up repeating what I say then contradicting yourself.
Not willingly they won't. However, as nominal prices rise, money supply rises, credit availability declines, and wages stay stagnant for most, they are forcefully powered-down, and their real consumption does fall, even if their dollar denominated consumption does rise. This is seen in the US easily enough by the divergence of income growth curves for those in the lower 80 vs those in the upper 20.
When money supply rises, then credit availability should go up. When prices fall with wages, then real consumption doesn't necessarily fall. You can see that not with the U.S. but with global demand for various resources, such as demand destruction from OECD countries for oil offset by increases from non-OECD countries, as seen in IEA charts.
My apologies for using that phrase. It implies knowledge of intent that I do not have.
I think you should focus on global data rather than stick to the U.S.
no no no. I am VERY opposed to a gold standard in currency, it'd wreck the economy so fast, the ink wouldn't even have had time to dry on the legislation's presidential signature. We trade much to fast now for there to be an exchange-ability at anywhere near market price for a commodity like gold or even silver. No, currencies must stay fiat.
This contradicts what you wrote earlier:
"They both [i.e., food and oil], today, remain spectacularly cheap; and expressed in terms of ounces of gold or any other tradeable commodity, remain more or less unchanged in cost."
We few, we happy few, we band of chipmunks....