6 ms·

> If the prices are denominated in USD, and the consumers are in countries with stronger (less elastic) currencies Well, that's not what's going on in the mark

> If the prices are denominated in USD, and the consumers are in countries with stronger (less elastic) currencies Well, that's not what's going on in the market. This crisis is caused by a reduced supply of inputs, mostly natural gas and energy. One of the direct causes is Hurricane Ida, which had a massive impact on natural gas supplies. China has also experienced a coal shortage, and also a drought that reduced hydropower generation. Europe has done a lot to switch to renewables, but they've suffered low winds. So no, the people who are going to hurt aren't rich Westerners, who are best positioned to ride this out. It's the poor people (mostly in the "global south") who already spend massive portions of their income on food, who will bear the brunt of this crisis.

shkkmo 5y ago
Which will probably mean we are headed into another round of popular uprisings. Lots of hungry people inevitably leads to lots is political instability.
piva00 5y ago
Reading about this and considering the current price shock and inflation in Brazil makes me worried. Right now, even before this fertiliser crisis materialises, there's already been a sizeable increase in food prices there, the pandemic pushed a new wave of homelessness and food insecurity after already some bad years before Bolsonaro came to power. Coupled with higher unemployment and overall loss of competitivity of Brazilian industry there just seems nowhere to go for society... If there is another food price hike it'll very likely cause massive social strife, I really don't see a way out if this crisis materialises in next year or so. It will be brutal for the global south.
motohagiography 5y ago
I would agree that energy costs are a signifcant factor in fertilizer prices because slim margins mean significant price volatility as a result of the input factors, but what upper percentile of westerner qualifies as rich enough to ride this out, and what happens to the rest? Given US economic policy directly caused this, wrapping it in climate narrative merely post-hoc justifies that the humans who will suffer from this deserve it because of climate change, and that the humans who are positioned to weather it deserve to have their resources and land redistributed to said victims because of climate change. If I had to guess who makes those redistribution decisions, because their divine authority comes from climate change, I would say committees of appointed politically aligned experts. On this inflationary policy issue, the climate emperor is naked.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > the humans who are positioned to weather it deserve to have their resources and land redistributed to said victims because of climate change. I mean, can you really disagree with the logic of this? The richest are likely to be the ones who have consumed the most and who have thus contributed most to climate change, and also they have the most resources available to help mitigate the problems they've caused. Given that they've benefited most from society, and have the most to lose if society collapses, they should be keen to pay their fair share (i.e. in proportion to their net wealth). You may not like "committees of appointed politically aligned experts", but if they are appointed by democratically elected representatives (and unless you can point to some experts that are free from any political alignment), I'm not sure who would be better at making decisions for how resources are distributed to solve societal problems. (For what it's worth, I thought your earlier comment about "controlled demolition of western economies" was thought-provoking, so I upvoted it).
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    Indeed, the point I was making was that the experts wouldn't be experts at all, they will be aparatchiks and party loyalists who can be trusted to maintain the narrative and ideology, just like they have been in every other variation of this scheme in the last 100 years. What started with, "hey, maybe we shouldn't litter, and maybe we should stop companies from poisoning watersheds and wrecking land," has become, "we must centrally plan all economic activity according to political exigencies," and I'm saying this has precedents that ended terribly and I don't see it working this time either. The issue of fertilizer prices is the effect of these policies designed to orchestrate a controlled demolition of the economy, which is a necessary step to disenfranchise the specific class of smallholders and business owners who naturally resist living under the regime of a planned economy, which operates on hallucinatory narratives designed to atomize and subjugate people. It's called "de-kulakization," and it's straight playbook. The kaleidescope of absurd narratives we see right now are designed to "neutralize" people, that is, to make them believe nothing is true and trust nothing enough to resist what this cadre of terrible people are creating. It's a trip to watch it happen in real time after only having read about it in history, and to have the opportunity to provide commentary while it's happening, but this goes so badly, if a few more people can see wtf is happening, maybe we can mitigate the consequences.

shkkmo 5y ago

Which will probably mean we are headed into another round of popular uprisings. Lots of hungry people inevitably leads to lots is political instability.

piva00 5y ago

Reading about this and considering the current price shock and inflation in Brazil makes me worried. Right now, even before this fertiliser crisis materialises, there's already been a sizeable increase in food prices there, the pandemic pushed a new wave of homelessness and food insecurity after already some bad years before Bolsonaro came to power. Coupled with higher unemployment and overall loss of competitivity of Brazilian industry there just seems nowhere to go for society... If there is another food price hike it'll very likely cause massive social strife, I really don't see a way out if this crisis materialises in next year or so. It will be brutal for the global south.

motohagiography 5y ago

I would agree that energy costs are a signifcant factor in fertilizer prices because slim margins mean significant price volatility as a result of the input factors, but what upper percentile of westerner qualifies as rich enough to ride this out, and what happens to the rest? Given US economic policy directly caused this, wrapping it in climate narrative merely post-hoc justifies that the humans who will suffer from this deserve it because of climate change, and that the humans who are positioned to weather it deserve to have their resources and land redistributed to said victims because of climate change. If I had to guess who makes those redistribution decisions, because their divine authority comes from climate change, I would say committees of appointed politically aligned experts. On this inflationary policy issue, the climate emperor is naked.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> the humans who are positioned to weather it deserve to have their resources and land redistributed to said victims because of climate change. I mean, can you really disagree with the logic of this? The richest are likely to be the ones who have consumed the most and who have thus contributed most to climate change, and also they have the most resources available to help mitigate the problems they've caused. Given that they've benefited most from society, and have the most to lose if society collapses, they should be keen to pay their fair share (i.e. in proportion to their net wealth). You may not like "committees of appointed politically aligned experts", but if they are appointed by democratically elected representatives (and unless you can point to some experts that are free from any political alignment), I'm not sure who would be better at making decisions for how resources are distributed to solve societal problems. (For what it's worth, I thought your earlier comment about "controlled demolition of western economies" was thought-provoking, so I upvoted it).
- motohagiography 5y ago
  Indeed, the point I was making was that the experts wouldn't be experts at all, they will be aparatchiks and party loyalists who can be trusted to maintain the narrative and ideology, just like they have been in every other variation of this scheme in the last 100 years. What started with, "hey, maybe we shouldn't litter, and maybe we should stop companies from poisoning watersheds and wrecking land," has become, "we must centrally plan all economic activity according to political exigencies," and I'm saying this has precedents that ended terribly and I don't see it working this time either. The issue of fertilizer prices is the effect of these policies designed to orchestrate a controlled demolition of the economy, which is a necessary step to disenfranchise the specific class of smallholders and business owners who naturally resist living under the regime of a planned economy, which operates on hallucinatory narratives designed to atomize and subjugate people. It's called "de-kulakization," and it's straight playbook. The kaleidescope of absurd narratives we see right now are designed to "neutralize" people, that is, to make them believe nothing is true and trust nothing enough to resist what this cadre of terrible people are creating. It's a trip to watch it happen in real time after only having read about it in history, and to have the opportunity to provide commentary while it's happening, but this goes so badly, if a few more people can see wtf is happening, maybe we can mitigate the consequences.