4 ms·

Print several trillion dollars to induce demand while shutting down industry worldwide off and on for two years, which reduces supply. It’s obvious this will c

Print several trillion dollars to induce demand while shutting down industry worldwide off and on for two years, which reduces supply. It’s obvious this will cause prices to rise dramatically.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Hello! Urea fertilizer has jumped from $400/ton to $1100/ton in a year. This is not consistent with the price jump being caused by inflation, which remains at much more modest rates. The prices are higher due energy prices rising in Europe and China, natural gas supply disruptions in Texas due to hurricanes and floods, and sanctions on Belarus. They are a driver of inflation, not caused by inflation.
- WheatM 5y ago
- nostromo 5y ago
  Inflation is never evenly distributed. That doesn’t dispute the cause for widespread inflation. Inflation is higher than it’s been in 40 years, and that timeframe includes several energy cost spikes, many of which were worse than the current spike.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    For this specific discussion, why focus on inflation (price increases in a broad basket of goods) at all, when it's a specific subset that is causing the issue, and the reasons for price increases in that subset is dominated by specific causation, disconnected from the purported reasons for the broader basket. Because any fixes for the broader inflation problem would have relatively little effect on this specific subset.
    - yossarian1408 5y ago
      ...can you completely discount that rising energy prices may be due to inflationary monetary policy? A higher money supply means more competition for less resources, and if the ultimate resource in nearly every supply chain is energy than it would be sensible to think this could be the starting point of a vicious cycle, rather than sanctions on Belarus or floods in Texas.
      - dundarious 5y ago
        To be clear, I don't completely discount it, but I think there are clear and large non-monetary influences that dominate.
      - fennecfoxen 5y ago
        We can't completely discount a price rise due to inflationary policy, but we most certainly can discount the portion that's over the 5-7% that most goods have seen — so, like, something like 5% of the increase due to monetary policy, and 270% due to other causes. Is that ridiculous? Hmm. Maybe try again. We can afford to be generous, after all! Let's say that it's 10% due to monetary policy, and 265% due to other factors. ... Nope, we're still not really there.
dehrmann 5y ago
I don't think the printed money induced food or fertilizer demand. It's not like laptops or dumbbells. The article calls out higher input prices due to energy and mineral costs. The pandemic didn't induce energy demand (it did cause it to yoyo), and the mineral costs are due, in part, to sanctions (the 2, 3, and 4th producers are Russia, Belarus, and China). Non-fertilizer uses are only 15% of demand, so this really wasn't driven by monetary policy inducing demand.
- nostromo 5y ago
  > I don't think the printed money induced food demand Food purchases are way up since Covid. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    Do you have a source that isn't paywalled? Their "Net sales of US Foods from 2012 to 2020" wasn't, but it also said sales were down in 2020. What makes comparisons tricky is people didn't eat out as much, so that cuts spending on some metrics. On others, commercial kitchens are more efficient and buy from wholesalers, so that lowers a different metric. But people consume fewer calories when cooking for themselves. My main point is that for everyone but the lower 5%, I'd be surprised if they got a stimulus check and ate more calories because of it. I work in tech and make decent money. Maybe I buy the organic berries instead of the regular ones, but I'm not buying twice as many baskets because I have more money. I still only needed 3.

Print several trillion dollars to induce demand while shutting down industry worldwide off and on for two years, which reduces supply. It’s obvious this will cause prices to rise dramatically.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Hello! Urea fertilizer has jumped from $400/ton to $1100/ton in a year. This is not consistent with the price jump being caused by inflation, which remains at much more modest rates. The prices are higher due energy prices rising in Europe and China, natural gas supply disruptions in Texas due to hurricanes and floods, and sanctions on Belarus. They are a driver of inflation, not caused by inflation.

WheatM 5y ago
nostromo 5y ago
Inflation is never evenly distributed. That doesn’t dispute the cause for widespread inflation. Inflation is higher than it’s been in 40 years, and that timeframe includes several energy cost spikes, many of which were worse than the current spike.
- dundarious 5y ago
  For this specific discussion, why focus on inflation (price increases in a broad basket of goods) at all, when it's a specific subset that is causing the issue, and the reasons for price increases in that subset is dominated by specific causation, disconnected from the purported reasons for the broader basket. Because any fixes for the broader inflation problem would have relatively little effect on this specific subset.
  - yossarian1408 5y ago
    ...can you completely discount that rising energy prices may be due to inflationary monetary policy? A higher money supply means more competition for less resources, and if the ultimate resource in nearly every supply chain is energy than it would be sensible to think this could be the starting point of a vicious cycle, rather than sanctions on Belarus or floods in Texas.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      To be clear, I don't completely discount it, but I think there are clear and large non-monetary influences that dominate.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      We can't completely discount a price rise due to inflationary policy, but we most certainly can discount the portion that's over the 5-7% that most goods have seen — so, like, something like 5% of the increase due to monetary policy, and 270% due to other causes. Is that ridiculous? Hmm. Maybe try again. We can afford to be generous, after all! Let's say that it's 10% due to monetary policy, and 265% due to other factors. ... Nope, we're still not really there.

dehrmann 5y ago

I don't think the printed money induced food or fertilizer demand. It's not like laptops or dumbbells. The article calls out higher input prices due to energy and mineral costs. The pandemic didn't induce energy demand (it did cause it to yoyo), and the mineral costs are due, in part, to sanctions (the 2, 3, and 4th producers are Russia, Belarus, and China). Non-fertilizer uses are only 15% of demand, so this really wasn't driven by monetary policy inducing demand.

nostromo 5y ago
> I don't think the printed money induced food demand Food purchases are way up since Covid. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/united-states
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Do you have a source that isn't paywalled? Their "Net sales of US Foods from 2012 to 2020" wasn't, but it also said sales were down in 2020. What makes comparisons tricky is people didn't eat out as much, so that cuts spending on some metrics. On others, commercial kitchens are more efficient and buy from wholesalers, so that lowers a different metric. But people consume fewer calories when cooking for themselves. My main point is that for everyone but the lower 5%, I'd be surprised if they got a stimulus check and ate more calories because of it. I work in tech and make decent money. Maybe I buy the organic berries instead of the regular ones, but I'm not buying twice as many baskets because I have more money. I still only needed 3.