Monday, Dec 14, 2009

Dearth of recent investment = supply shortages

Bloomberg: Fastest Food Inflation Since 08

On top of tax rises, interest rates, oil and gas, staple foodstuffs are to rise considerably over the next three years, and that's before future weather events are factored in. Good link to food prices chart within article.

Posted by lukeskywalker @ 01:10 PM (2454 views)
Add Comment
Report Article

61 Comments

1. crunchy said...

"2. crunchy said...You can rationalise as much as you want.
You can rant on about deflation.
You can try to convince us that all this extra money sloshing around will just be looked at.
You can dream about cheap food and ice cream.

You don't dare to face the expensive truth.
You know who you are and just like inflation, you can run but you can't hide.

They always get what they want" Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:08PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul, you were wrong again.

For the last time (HYPERINFLATION & FOOD SHORTAGES.) The noble C02 BS biofuel wipeout. Paul check what price rice was 2years ago and ask yourself who needs it most. You should be able to work the rest out for yourself. One hopes!

Techiman, I'm still waiting in the wings for you, re $collapse.

Monday, December 14, 2009 02:03PM Report Comment
 

2. crunchy said...

http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2009/11/24/watch-out-for-this-council-tax-scam/

This is for any person who is gullible enough to believe in Climate Change.

Monday, December 14, 2009 02:24PM Report Comment
 

3. icarus said...

"Agricultural commodities will be a great investment........but there's a painful risk of hunger."

The growing gap between rich and poor.

Monday, December 14, 2009 02:38PM Report Comment
 

4. crunchy said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

3. icarus

The growing gap between life and death. Please watch this video, then you will know why they changed the title from warming to change.

Also check what the ice caps are doing now, instead of 'summer' video footage. Also water does not expand when ice melts into it.

Try it with a glass of water and an ice cube. D'oh!!! (Kindergarten stuff.)

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:03PM Report Comment
 

5. mountain goat said...

This bloomberg article is speculative, says prices may surge blah blah, whereas in the real world after a 20% fall in sterling last year

Tesco has dismissed reports of spiralling food inflation as “nonsense” after it unveiling a credit crunch-defying set of figures for the 13 weeks to November 24.

Tesco finance and strategy director Andrew Higginson said that there was inflationary pressure on some basic products, particularly wheat-based ones, but the supermarket giant’s overall inflation was less than 1 per cent for its third quarter – lower than the same period last year.

“These tales of rampant inflation, based on one or two products, are complete nonsense,” he said.

This week, the BRC reported that food inflation eased from 1.4 per cent in October to 0.7 per cent in November – although the November figure was 4.3 per cent up on the same month last year.

In the 13 weeks to November 24, Tesco’s UK sales were up 7.6 per cent and like-for-like sales jumped 4.1 per cent, excluding petrol. Total group sales increased 11.8 per cent – after rising 9.2 per cent in the first half – driven by rapid international expansion and a solid performance in non-food.

Higginson said that Tesco expected to have a “very good” Christmas, but warned that “consumers are a lot more cautious” and urged the Bank of England to cut interest rates as Retail Week went to press.


http://www.retail-week.com/tesco-rejects-food-inflation-claims/321915.article
see also
http://www.iii.co.uk/articles/articledisplay.jsp?section=Markets&article_id=10070278
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26f3c2ba-e3cc-11de-b2a9-00144feab49a.html

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:09PM Report Comment
 

6. timmy t said...

Crunchy - "Also water does not expand when ice melts into it."
So are you saying that if you put half an inch of water in a pint glass, then filled it with ice and waited for the ice to melt, that the water level wouldn't rise?

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:10PM Report Comment
 

7. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

 

8. mountain goat said...

oops sorry article I quoted was 2007! Last 2 references I gave contain the story I was after...

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:12PM Report Comment
 

9. crunchy said...

6. timmy t

Everything is relative Little Grasshopper.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:13PM Report Comment
 

10. mountain goat said...

sorry didn't close tags. Better shut up having a bad day here :-)

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:13PM Report Comment
 

11. rickyb said...

"Also water does not expand when ice melts into it."

Try repeating the experiment holding the ice above the level of the water.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:14PM Report Comment
 

12. Cheekie Charlie said...

Surely the Ice will displace the water causing the water level to rise so when the ice melts there will be equalibrium.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:18PM Report Comment
 

13. rumble said...

"Also water does not expand when ice melts into it."

Crunchy, you feeling ok?

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:19PM Report Comment
 

14. timmy t said...

Are there 2 Crunchy's? One who occassionally says sensible things and one who comes up with utter b******s like Everything is relative little grasshopper...?

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:26PM Report Comment
 

15. rumble said...

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest his dog typed the above.
Re "says sensible things", perhaps fooled by randomness.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:28PM Report Comment
 

16. crunchy said...

10. rickyb

Icebergs have no wings Little Grasshopper.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:30PM Report Comment
 

17. paranoia blue said...

Re: Ice melting
However there is greater free-surface effect.
NB I think that this human induced “climate change problem” is extremely over-hyped ATB
“Burn baby burn” :

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:31PM Report Comment
 

18. rumble said...

Crunchy, cut your losses, be quiet. You're blowing my mind.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:34PM Report Comment
 

19. rickyb said...

"Icebergs have no wings"

I don't think I said they did. I just said that any ice that melts above the level of the water (for example above sea level) will increase the volume of water.

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:43PM Report Comment
 

20. letthemfall said...

crunchy

Are you really Eric Cantona?

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:52PM Report Comment
 

21. timmy t said...

Crunchy - "Icebergs have no wings..." whilst technically correct, this isn't really adding much weight to your argument I'm afraid...

Monday, December 14, 2009 03:53PM Report Comment
 

22. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy, by trying to claim that climate change/MMGW believers have ignored or lied about basic things such as polar bears swimming or water levels rising, you do your argument no favours.

Water levels and ice melting - http://www.seed.slb.com/v2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1166

Monday, December 14, 2009 04:50PM Report Comment
 

23. Lem said...

Just to clear things up - Melting Ice will not cause water levels to raise as long as:-
It is free floating in the water
The ice was formed by the same water that it is floating in.
Both these conditions are true for the Arctic ice caps.

Monday, December 14, 2009 04:55PM Report Comment
 

24. letthemfall said...

When the icebergs follow the sardines, the seagulls get really hacked off and refuse to believe in global warming.
(Ancient French proverb)

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:04PM Report Comment
 

25. techieman said...

"Techiman, I'm still waiting in the wings for you, re $collapse."

whatsthat Crunchy?

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:26PM Report Comment
 

26. crunchy said...

19. timmy t

It's all about weight and gravity.

Shippy, you will surrender one day. I promise. I just hope it's not too late. btw I dont have a problem with imigrantes just immigration.

Polar bears and rising water? Compliments of Al Gore my friend. It was tongue in cheek. Outsmarting yourself onces again.

Our little fluffy white bears have been known to swim 300 miles, but some who stand to make fortunes and have further control over our

lives may disagree.

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:37PM Report Comment
 

27. Unbeliever said...

There is huge amounts of ice sitting on land in antartica, siberia, greenland, alaska etc. When this melts it runs off into the oceans. On top of this water also expands as it warms (only by tiny amounts but there is a lot of it. Of course its entirely possible that all the fresh water entering the North Atlantic may disrupt the Atlantic Conveyor (not the container ship) and we will end up freezing LOL.

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:40PM Report Comment
 

28. krustyatemyhamster said...

"Try it with a glass of water and an ice cube. D'oh!!! (Kindergarten stuff.)"

Kindergarten stuff indeed.

Go and learn something slightly more advanced and interesting today and find out what happens when ice melts. Go on, do it - learn something.

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:46PM Report Comment
 

29. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy, I see just as much desire to control from those with power as you do.
I just happen to think, with regard to climate change, 9/11, the economic crisis and whatever else, it is opportunistic hijacking of events, rather than outright controlling of them.
For example, that GS will be set to make guaranteed billions from cap and trade is not proof that man-made global warming is invented, just that such amoral organisations will seek profit from anything.
Anyhow, whether I believe that an elite organisation is behind world events or not probably wouldn't change how I live my life. My priorities in life aren't money or consumption.

Monday, December 14, 2009 05:55PM Report Comment
 

30. crunchy said...

25. shipbuilder... All I can say to you is that I wished that I had as much luck as the elite in what I do. It takes hard work to produce

successful outcomes. The 'fact' that millions of third world people will starve to death because of the decisions based on climate change

policies as well as policies of 'past' does effect my life. If people think that they can stop Mother Earth from natural evolution through

taxation people are seriously mistaken. Stopping Mother Fvckers would be more realistic.

24. krustyatemyhamster.. I feel deeply sorry for you, however blissful it may be for you.

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:05PM Report Comment
 

31. vinrouge said...

Crunchy @4 "Also water does not expand when ice melts into it."

Sorry to piss on your campfire but.............

It will expand if the water into which it melts was at 4°C. Simple physics really.
However, I don't believe in all the AGW cr@p

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:07PM Report Comment
 

32. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy, you have to wonder at the way the whole environmental debate has turned. In the 70s and 80s it all seemed so simple and at least made sense. On one side we had, for want of a better term, the industrialists – the global corporations and their supporters who wanted deregulation and barriers brought down so that resources could be exploited, profits expanded and coffers filled. Along with them sat most of the political right and much of the left who wanted more jobs for the workers and taxes from the corporations. On the other side was a rather lowly combination of the relatively tiny environmental movement, a few countryside NIMBY types and some religionists who, to be fair, consistent with their respective beliefs, objected to the destruction of god's green earth.
In the space of a decade or so, the situation has, to put it mildly, become much less clear. Apparently we now have the globalists, or the global corporations and their supporters, in an unholy alliance with the evil greens and socialists pushing the the great environmental agenda/plan/scam/conspiracy. The green globalists seemingly want to 'close our factories' (which they own), 'ban our cars' (which they make), stop the development of the third world (their future customers) and reduce the population (their current customers). Bizzarre. Maybe they can make more money from green taxes?
Were the millions who have already starved in the third world the result of green taxes, or something else?

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:26PM Report Comment
 

33. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy, you have to wonder at the way the whole environmental debate has turned. In the 70s and 80s it all seemed so simple and at least made sense. On one side we had, for want of a better term, the industrialists – the global corporations and their supporters who wanted deregulation and barriers brought down so that resources could be exploited, profits expanded and coffers filled. Along with them sat most of the political right and much of the left who wanted more jobs for the workers and taxes from the corporations. On the other side was a rather lowly combination of the relatively tiny environmental movement, a few countryside NIMBY types and some religionists who, to be fair, consistent with their respective beliefs, objected to the destruction of god's green earth.
In the space of a decade or so, the situation has, to put it mildly, become much less clear. Apparently we now have the globalists, or the global corporations and their supporters, in an unholy alliance with the evil greens and socialists pushing the the great environmental agenda/plan/scam/conspiracy. The green globalists seemingly want to 'close our factories' (which they own), 'ban our cars' (which they make), stop the development of the third world (their future customers) and reduce the population (their current customers). Bizzarre. Maybe they can make more money from green taxes?
Were the millions who have already starved in the third world the result of green taxes, or something else?

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:26PM Report Comment
 

34. rumble said...

Haiku.

Polar bears can swim.
Icebergs without wings can float.
Crunchy needs a boat.

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:41PM Report Comment
 

35. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy, i'll answer my last question myself - the starving millions are a result of the greed of the global megacorps and the cult of consumerism. Their fuel is our money. By not buying into that I hopefully do my bit, so it matters in my life as well.

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:42PM Report Comment
 

36. rumble said...

Little grasshopper.
Crunchy is off his rocker.
Less meat than whopper.

Monday, December 14, 2009 07:45PM Report Comment
 

37. nomad said...

A few years ago it was all about the hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs. This was going to let harmful rays through and cause global warming. What happened to that?

Now we're told that the rapidly repairing hole in the ozone layer will heat up Antarctica.

CO2 is the new CFC.

Bulls**t on top of bulls**t.

Monday, December 14, 2009 09:44PM Report Comment
 

38. rumble said...

"A few years ago it was all about the hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs. This was going to let harmful rays through and cause global warming."
- Not global warming, UV related health problems.

"What happened to that?"
- They started winding down usage.

"Now we're told that the rapidly repairing hole in the ozone layer will heat up Antarctica."
- Eh?

Is there anything that isn't lies?

In my tin foil hat,
I can smell a plotting rat.
I am not a nut.

Monday, December 14, 2009 10:14PM Report Comment
 

39. crunchy said...

28. shipbuilder Yep, but they have all the money they need, and if they need more they can print it. At the 'top' are ego's the size of which

are beyond our comprehension. Think of all the natural science that is being mutated in the name of advancement. How do we know

that 'these' discoveries are not to our detriment in the long run. Let's say Global Warming or Change is valid. The most effective way to

combat this would be to revert back to a primitive age, Could you really see that happening? Let's say you could, but that would still leave

the dilemma of natural climate evolution. It's the natural climate evolution that we have no control over. Now some would also argue that

because of this, we should maintain the course and in time we will have the technology to control that aspect.

It just goes on and on. My main problem with said solutions to said problems is why does everything have to infringe on our personal

liberties and mortality? Don't we ever 'truely' benefit from anything? Have the elite discovered something so wonderful in finite supply that

mass genocide is morally valued?

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:04PM Report Comment
 

40. phdinbubbles said...

What's that golden stash?
Yelled the Lizard in his rage
Planning for a crash

Calleman saw Moon
Resonating with the sky
That Neil Armstrong high

NWO
You're doomed you fools, I tell ye
Shit, you're right! Oh no

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:17PM Report Comment
 

41. crunchy said...

Shippy......

Could mass genocide be all the answers to a cartel just big enough to supply the wealth of the few whilst still maintaining their power hold

and ensuring resources are extented to the maximum for their overwelming desire for personal survival.

These are some of the questions that concern me, and they go far beyond the tin foil, denier, conspiracy propaganda.

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:25PM Report Comment
 

42. shipbuilder said...

Crunchy - I agree about infringing on our personal liberties, but we face a problem there, which I've been thinking about.
Problems and solutions and liberties are framed in the language of those in power - political spin, marketing, the language of cold economics and individualism. In an environmental context, talk of our liberties is usually talk of our freedom to consume as we will, yet this 'freedom' is undoubtedly something partly drummed into us by the consumer culture. Older and wiser cultures balanced these individual liberties with responsibilities to others and future generations.
It could be argued that with the backlash against the environmental movement, the 'elite' have achieved exactly what they wanted - the right to consume invoked as an essential liberty, where you get christians proclaiming that Jesus would have bought an SUV. What could be better for unfettered consumerism than the demonisation of restraint?
That's not to say I'm in any way in favour of the way things are currently being handled. There are plenty of other infringements on our freedoms to leave me in no doubt as to the dangerousness of our governments - however this creeping idea that environmentalism in general is restrictive leaves be very wary. I don't consider the buying of loads of cr*p to be essential to my happiness. I'm not cahined to debt. In the context of current society, no matter what you say about possible plans for the future, that makes me a bad citizen - our economy is still 100% consumption and expansion driven. In that way you could say my environmental leanings have liberated me hugely.

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:34PM Report Comment
 

43. shipbuilder said...

Are you saying that the argument for conserving resources is based on the elite being able to survive and hold power by reducing the population?
There would need to be pretty strong evidence for that to justify saying f*ck it, lets just use up what we have, its our freedom and even then, that would hardly be the correct reaction to such a scenario.
Look, whether we agree that the 'elite' is as organised as you say or not, currently the power base of the rich and powerful is our spending. Take that away and they have nothing. This backlash against environmentalism to me simply means that they get what currently sustains them - consumerism.

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:43PM Report Comment
 

44. shipbuilder said...

Anyway, I'm off to bed, goodnight!

Monday, December 14, 2009 11:46PM Report Comment
 

45. crunchy said...

38. shipbuilder Much of what you say is from the perpective of our leaders, many of which are unelected, as if that makes much of a

difference anyway when you consider that those who seek power may have certain personality dysfunctions.

My main problem with this social and scientific engineering I see, is do we just go along with the agenda which has been planned by

what could possibly be a completely misguided crackpot concept of our advancement, even if it is totally altruistic?

My old history book is setting off my alarm bells left right and centre over this whole Climate Change movement and it's far reaching

consequences. To accept all on the words of those in power would be foolhardy in the extreme when one considers data manipulation,

media blackouts and thousands of independent scientists and climatologists that can state a sound case otherwise.

Also when one considers the timing of this taxation climax, it really does not help with my concerns over validity. It all just seems to fit

into the Globalists agenda like a well tailored glove.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:16AM Report Comment
 

46. crunchy said...

39. shipbuilder Good morning!

If the elite were that clumsy or just plain lucky they would not be where they are today. "It's tough at the top."

Think on the above ship and when I have some time I will view your link.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:23AM Report Comment
 

47. crunchy said...

Ok ship.. I have read your link and as I thought, it is not 'independent' (that's important for obvious reasons) and on top of that gives no indication as to the extent of a possible rising of sea levels. The report also does not reveal whether it is the sun that is causing this so called global warming (now in a prolonged cool period) or whether it is a combination of gases. "The greenhouse effect." I am still sceptical, which should be the premise of valid science anyway. The aspect which has sadly been forgotten in the mad (It's too late now everythings been signed and the investments made) dash to the finishing post???????

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 01:00AM Report Comment
 

48. crunchy said...

Ship..."Were the millions who have already starved in the third world the result of green taxes, or something else?"

That's a whole different subject. One of which could take a very long time to blog on, apart from upsetting more people on here than this subject obviously has, It's back to the history book and others. It wasn't that long ago, shippy, amongst more recent things from the same 'superfluous' attitude to life and human freedoms.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 01:25AM Report Comment
 

49. rumble said...

Crunchy is awake.
He is talking to himself.
Should use a mirror.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 01:44AM Report Comment
 

50. crunchy said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235629/Is-Blair-trying-cash-climate-change--Ex-PM-arrives-summit-urge-greenhouse-gas-deal.html

Shipbuilder..Right on cue, Tony Bliar steps in. Long article that does more to support my doubts than dispell them.

The comments at the bottom are interesting, if indeed they are still there when you read this. Shame about the propaganda fillers

though.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 02:04AM Report Comment
 

51. crunchy said...

Shippy. It seems that I am not alone in my thinking. I have countries behind me that have also smelt the RAT.

How about stopping Copenhagen and instead, debating with scientists on 'both' sides on the most effective measures if any are in fact

needed. What are the money changers really worried about? They can fool some of the people............

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 08:46AM Report Comment
 

52. letthemfall said...

crunchy
It is not the case that thousands of scientists dispute global warming, or that data is being distorted, or that this is a conspiracy of those in power. The powerful corporations, notably oil companies, are most likely to dispute the evidence, for no better reason than it would impact on their business; like the cigarette companies, they are likely to deny the evidence even as it stares them in the face.

Whether or not Tony Blair supports the case, the research comes down very strongly in support of warming due to emissions. There is no certainty in anything; it is a question of what is most probable, and the evidence suggests that global warming is occurring is highly probable. If you stop Copenhagen nothing would be done, and we seem to have little time now to do it.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:47AM Report Comment
 

53. crunchy said...

48. letthemfall PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION. Look at what they said if they did not get the bailout.

Tell me how long the world has existed and then tell me what the big panic is all about. Look at the enviromental policies of the Americans

and Britian before THE CRASH. Sorry but you are communicating to a person that knows all about discernment and one that remains to

date unconvinced.

Don't be a another sucker! We do have some polution problems and I have no problems with measures to clean the planet, but don't

expect me to believe in whats going on now or in the people that are driving this through. I know the global agenda and this is all too

convenient on too many levels, but you go ahead and fill your boots with the tax bills.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:54AM Report Comment
 

54. letthemfall said...

crunchy
Is the important question how long the world has existed or how long since the start of the industrial revolution?

As usual, you tell us you "know" better than the rest, although you never really offer any arguments. You can't just tell people they are "suckers" (where do you get these expressions from?) and expect that to suffice.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:07PM Report Comment
 

55. crunchy said...

If you read what I have said above and still think I have not made a valid argumant, then you are wasting my time.

My mind is set until I see anything that may change it. That will not come from you, It will come from more solid evidence that has no

need for covering up and has no fear of further analysis with other climatologists contary data.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:20PM Report Comment
 

56. letthemfall said...

crunchy
I see assertions but not arguments. On the other hand, the issues are complex and difficult to discuss on a blog. Be sceptical by all means, but dismissing the whole thing is not rational. And if your time is being wasted, you are wasting it yourself.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:24PM Report Comment
 

57. crunchy said...

56. letthemfall said...'And if your time is being wasted, you are wasting it yourself.'

For the first time you have spoken sense and the truth. It's not as difficult as you think, and I see truth much easier than deception.

May I wish the same attribute over time to you letthemfall.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 01:38PM Report Comment
 

58. timmy t said...

crunchy - try my little test @ 3. You said it won't happen, I say it will - see if that changes your mind...

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 02:07PM Report Comment
 

59. crunchy said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece

Last one.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 02:28PM Report Comment
 

60. rumble said...

"Tell me how long the world has existed and then tell me what the big panic is all about."
Around 4.5 billion years. Now you tell me how many people existed back then.

Considering such comments as the above and your concerning lack of understanding regarding the less than advanced topic of melting ice cubes, you are clearly not up to speed with kindergarten physics - what on earth makes you think you're qualified to analyse complex weather systems?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 02:35PM Report Comment
 

61. crunchy said...

60. rumble After these few days It might now start to become as clear as ice. I hope you have viewed all the videos I have now posted and

have made an informed decision based on truth, not lies.

No hard feelings sport.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 08:05PM Report Comment
 

Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Username  
Admin Password
Email Address
Comments

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies