Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cattle ranchers in Montana are making great money, wheat farmers have had record years.. Montana's agri-economy is having one of it's best runs in decades due largely in part to world demand for product.
Supply and demand has both winners and losers.
The US leads the world in crude production. Demand, globally, is high. Current prices make it viable for oil sands to continue to be developed. New pipelines are opening up. A hell of a lot of jobs are being created in that industry. The eastern part of Montana is BOOMING. North Dakota is off the charts.
Again, supply and demand.
Based on the hyper-cynicism found in these political nonsensical posts, I'm sure that some will point detriment to this economic benefit and find fault where none exists.
Well gee- sorry you have to pay $8.00 p/lb for your t-bone and pay $3.75 for a gallon of gas to go buy it, but trust me- some hard working cattle ranchers in Montana, and oil field workers in ND appreciate your business.
Everything is less expensive today if the government hadn't printed trillions of dollars with many of those dollars ending up in commodities.
So your arguments about the price of groceries has absolutely nothing to do with drought or global demand for food, or beef demand and supply in China (even though you consistently challenge those discussions non-specifically)? Perhaps you should stick to threads that are not about food prices and consumer sentiment.
Hmm no rebuttal from the tea-poopers? No comment on WSJ's articles pretty much derailing the ill fated arguments? Wow. Usually pretty popular to call the WSJ a left-leaning rag when the news isn't on your side..
So your arguments about the price of groceries has absolutely nothing to do with drought or global demand for food, or beef demand and supply in China (even though you consistently challenge those discussions non-specifically)? Perhaps you should stick to threads that are not about food prices and consumer sentiment.
I have no desire to address replies that have completely ignored everything I have said.
I have no desire to address replies that have completely ignored everything I have said.
I assure you that I have not ignored you, but you are only speaking vaguely. First you asserted that drought conditions are not impacting food prices ("blame the plague"). Then it was pointed out to you that the parts of the country that supply fruits, nuts, beef, and vegetables are suffering from drought.
Then you asserted that bread can be found in stores. Of course, even a cursory Google search reveals that food prices are rising, as Casper in Dallas pointed out.
Then, in response to a post about demand in China, you made the non-sequitur comment that "competition doesn't cause prices to rise. It causes them to fall." I pointed out the point of the post to which you were responding--that there is increased demand-side competition for food, including expensive meats, which does generally cause prices to rise.
Then you made another non-sequitur comment, this one also vague and making assumptions about my post: "You assume that cattle can't be raised in China." I reiterated the point that rising demand increases prices and that Chinese demand impacts American prices.
Instead, you responded: "Beef raised itself for centuries." Which is vague, beside the point, and again, non-sequitur. After another exchange, we essentially had come full circle--at which point you made the claim that, "[e]verything is less expensive today if the government hadn't printed trillions of dollars with many of those dollars ending up in commodities."
And then one realizes that you are arguing in this thread not because you know or care about food prices and the reasons for them, but because of your view of US monetary policy. Taking a brief look at your counter-factual, the most likely result of the government not deficit spending/keeping interest rates low/spending on troubled assets (which is what I assume "printed trillions of dollars" references) would have been an even further prolonged recession, or even depression. It could well be that prices would be lower, but they would be low because people would have less money and fewer jobs. The financial crisis caused private money to sit on the sidelines, and government spending supplemented aggregate demand to prevent a negative feedback loop.
That is all a little far afield, but your "substantive" comment was, as well.
The big picture is that global population will rise about 33% by 2050, which is a lot more mouths to feed, and means that great strides in agricultural supply will be necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
