Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t have time to research all this stuff. Wish I did, but I don’t. It’s not one of the economic areas I research for investment purposes anyway, and never has been. Perhaps it should have been.

However, googling for a few minutes turns up a few interesting things. Many do think both food and fuel are in a “bubble”, and could come screaming off the reel in the not-too-distant future. I see that gold is off $100 from its high earlier this year and if the “gold bugs” are right, a decrease in oil prices and other commodities might not be far behind. One analyst attributes the upsurge in both to misallocations of resources, “friction” losses caused by reorintation of resources and, of course, speculation. Interestingly, oil production is up in 2008 vs 2007, but consumption is down; certainly in the U.S., but also even in China. Doubtless the current recession is in good part responsible for the decline in consumption and miscalculation is in good part responsible for the increase in production.

Interestingly, one writer believes that changes in resource allocation are, in themselves, wasteful and have a dampening effect on economies. So, peaks and valleys in prices of commodities, which encourage such “friction” can, themselves, result in shortages as people change from producing “X” in favor of producing “Y”. Of course, speculators with extraordary power can cause the peaks and valleys in order to make money on both ends. I recall once when I did that inadvertently. Market makers keep only so much stock on hand. If one repeatedly places orders exceeding the supply, it abnormally affects both the peaks and valleys. As I said, I once did it without realizing it in a very low cap, thinly traded local but listed stock. Got an irate phone call from the market maker, who wondered whether I somehow had some information I shouldn’t have. And I was a piddling “player”, investing just a little bit I had left over after paying the rent. Big, big players can do things like that on a much larger scale. I recall talking to a poor guy on the other end of a former First Lady’s live cattle futures famous trade. Unfortunately for him, he was encouraged by her broker to buy big ( he was a really wealthy guy…WAS). Interestingly, as he invested, so did other big players. The price went up and up. Suddenly, some other players and the former First Lady all jumped out at the same time and he was among the chumps without a chair when the music stopped. He lost a lot more than she made.

Some fairly intriguing things. If you go back and pick your base year as, say, 2001, you can make a case for the proposition that the Euro countries are, in effect, paying between $60 and $70 for a barrel of oil if, oil was at $120 U.S. if you consider the differences in the relative value of the Euro and the dollar then and now. Of course, that’s likely to change. And, my goodness what a lot of money some are going to make off the losses and misery of others! The time may come when the farmers who are making money now will hit the wall if they keep worshipping the ethanol corn god. Seems likely the short sellers already have their fingers hovering over the button.

I am not an expert. I can read this and read that and conclude that the world is coming to an end or that we’re not terribly far away (6 mo to 1 yr maybe) away from a reversal when what’s up now will be down and what’s down now will be up. It depends on who you read.

Oh yes, the profit from making ethanol is massively down from what it was just a couple of years ago. According to some, it’s fast approaching the vanishing point. Seems the “real” market for it is saturated. So, since land previously used for “Grain A” is being used for corn, thus driving up the cost of both corn and “Grain A”, with lots of allocation waste in the process, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a fair amount of corn land is going to go back to “Grain A” in the near future (of course it takes at least a year to change) as farmers get tempted away from corn and back into “Grain A”. Again, the reallocation of resources will be wasteful.

I do not disbelieve those who say oil will run out sometime or other, even shale and tar sands oil. So will the sun, after all, someday or other. It still seems to me the real question is whether and how adjustments can be made and just how much waste will occur in the process. It’s pretty hard to argue that the “Grain A” to corn-for-ethanol reallocation served any useful purpose. Other adaptations might be much better in the outcome.

But just looking at all these disparate opinions, each with his own facts and figures and algebraic equations and abstreuse symbols, it is difficult for me to believe we’re ineluctably on the cusp of revisiting the stone age. Knowing as I do that a food producer really can reduce his oil consumption without reducing production, at least in some spheres, I’m tempted to think it’s not a real, structural food shortage we’re looking at, but one of those cycles we who are older and are not George Soros, have all come to hate.
 
Al:

Interesting book, “1491”. I enjoyed it a great deal. Thank you for reminding me of it.
 
Ridgerunner, the facts are OECD countries oil demands haven’t grown. We’ve shipped manufacturing to developing countries like China who have cheap labor. Demand is growing in these countries. Because oil is a global product looking as US above ground reserves/stocks in Cushing, OK isn’t enough. Higer oil production was predicted for 2008. The IEA (Birol) is looking at field declines, production projects to come on line and concludes there’ll be a supply cruch after 2010 to 2015. Countries are nationalizing their oilfields, squeezing out the Big OIL, and not making the necessary investments to meet coming demands. Net exports of the top 20 exporters are on decline as they grow their own consumption demand netoilexports.blogspot.com/
Are speculators bidding up the price of oil? I believe they are and have had conversation about it with a friend who is also in the oil business.

For someone who needs to have an idea about where the economy is heading those things can’t be ignored.
 
what i find frustrating is how our president appears completely aloof to this problem. this is getting serious and all we here about is how NAFTA is good for our country!! give me a break. i can’t believe how corrupt and inept our ruling elite are.
 
what i find frustrating is how our president appears completely aloof to this problem. this is getting serious and all we here about is how NAFTA is good for our country!! give me a break. i can’t believe how corrupt and inept our ruling elite are.
Yea…and I don’t see any change coming in dealing with it either. Look at the disregard and discounting for this problem just within here. Collectively, we elect our leaders to reflect our values.
 
Ridgerunner, the facts are OECD countries oil demands haven’t grown. We’ve shipped manufacturing to developing countries like China who have cheap labor. Demand is growing in these countries. Because oil is a global product looking as US above ground reserves/stocks in Cushing, OK isn’t enough. Higer oil production was predicted for 2008. The IEA (Birol) is looking at field declines, production projects to come on line and concludes there’ll be a supply cruch after 2010 to 2015. Countries are nationalizing their oilfields, squeezing out the Big OIL, and not making the necessary investments to meet coming demands. Net exports of the top 20 exporters are on decline as they grow their own consumption demand netoilexports.blogspot.com/
Are speculators bidding up the price of oil? I believe they are and have had conversation about it with a friend who is also in the oil business.

For someone who needs to have an idea about where the economy is heading those things can’t be ignored.
All sorts of things can’t be ignored. That oil consumption in China is going down is claimed, at least, by some, to be true. Maybe it’s so. I remember the old cries for “a bushel of wheat for a barrel of oil”. Even at wheat’s current inflated price, it’s nowhere near what people demanded be the case. I didn’t believe it would happen then, and I don’t believe oil is going to “go cheap” now. But I do know there are differences in opinion concerning what the situation really is with the cost of food today and the various (name removed by moderator)uts into that, as well as the prognostications relating to the same. Perhaps foolishly, I have become wary of the far ends of the spectrum of opinion, particularly since a seminar I attended perhaps thirty years ago.

It was a live seminar relating to both medical and legal issues. Two of the presenters were a physician; a cardiovascular surgeon, as I recall, and a trial lawyer. They were to present a cross-examination scenario on a surgical procedure. The lawyer joked that he was going to make a monkey out of the doctor. The doctor laughed and assured him and the audience that he could not. The lawyer proceeded to make a monkey out of the doctor on one particular part of the procedure, so thoroughly the doctor got pretty angry, for real. The lawyer broke it off and turned to the audience and announced that the doctor was actually right; that he, the lawyer had researched one limited thing and turned it on its head. He had, in fact, elicited a pivotal conclusion which actually lacked an essential foundational element, but it didn’t seem so to anyone. Because he had researched it, he could seem to know more about that one thing than the doctor who, of course, knew “the whole” vastly beyond the lawyer’s knowledge and understanding. Because he was more immediately familiar with that one thing, he could make it appear the doctor was wrong about everything.

I am not accusing any poster here of that. I am just saying I am cautious about “evidence” that seems to prove some broad conclusion, but might only truly demonstrate one thing; a thing that might be true in one way or at one time, but is not worthy of universal application.

I do know there are opinions all over the subject matter of this thread. In the welter of all of it, certain things seem worthy of at least tentative belief. Certainly there are food protests in some places. Definitely oil is finite and its cost has gone up substantially in the last few years. Indisputably both exploration and development investment are not maximal. Definitely there are signs that some of the food problem is driven by speculation. Some by horrible government policies. Some, doubtless, by increases in the cost of oil. Gold, however, is going down; something I have learned over the years as a sign of disinflationary expectations on the part of people who trade gold for a living. I have learned to think that speculators exacerbate spikes and troughs in nearly everything, and I have learned to resent them some for that. I don’t disbelieve those who maintain that future population decline is already in motion for reasons unrelated to any commodity.

I am no expert at any of this. I just am not persuaded that the jump from “oil is finite and seems to be near its maximum production potential” to “the population must be reduced or at least not increased” contains all the needed foundational information to be truly convincing. The leap from the first proposition to “the future optimum way of life is stone age” (given that we are all aware the 19th century, at least, was far removed from the stone age) would challenge Superman. One is tempted to learn from that lawyer of long ago and say “Objection. Inadequate foundation” and to respond “Sustained”. But not being that lawyer, I will refrain.
 
Ridgerunner, I’m telling you what the doctors are saying. If I wanted to tell you what lawyer is saying I could in fact use Matt Saviar’s arguments since he is in fact a lawyer and not an internationally recognized oil man.

Almost two years ago I begain reading what these oilmen were saying about the directing of oil’s prices. So I begain moving the bulk of my investments into oil and gold (as an inflation hedge since oil prices feeds through the whole system) and yea moving into oil stocks along with my working interest in oil leases was putting a lot of eggs into one basket. Oil was around $60 then and gold was around $630. In less than two years if I cashed out those stock today I’d be up about 300 grand. I beleived oil could go over 80 and maybe to 90, and am supprized by where it is today, Gold is up 50% in a year and a half. Even if it’s off its top that still isn’t a bad return.

So should I listen to the doctors who in 2004 who were saying oil prices would fall to $25 range or go above $50 in 2005?interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/nj45win9664/SPE/qahi.wmv/play.asx
The most optimistic oil doctors is CERA. They haven’t been very good a price predictions home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.h2.jpg

there’s a saying that history repeats itself but from completion to plugging oilfields only have one history. To grow world GDP in a world economy dependent upon oil you have got to increase the oil flow into the system. These same oilmen are predicting the industrial, geopolical, and geological limits to oil production. Over the next 9 years the oil industry must flow into the GDP pipeline the equivolent of 6 to 9 new Saudi Arabias. I gues we’ll have to wait and see if that is going to happen. In the mean time I’m preparing that that might not happen.

wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif
 
These same oilmen are predicting the industrial, geopolical, and geological limits to oil production.
last week i sat in on a technical conference on the discovery and development of prudoe bay. the big eye opener was when the BP engineer went over their current drilling and production program. the major point was how much the reservoir is declining. they poked hundreds of holes into it to get out every drop and are using state of the art techniques to enhance recovery. even though it’s at least 85% depleted, it’s still the biggest producing field in north america.

the best fund i have is my aim energy fund. besides my global bond fund, all my stock funds are tanking. but they say now is a good time to buy stocks because in 2009 they’ll be back up. not so sure about that. maybe the days of cheap oil are over for good and we can’t look back and expect the stocks to recover.
 
Doug and Dee Dee:

Good luck on your bets.

For myself I would be taking my cash off the table with gold.

I note that BP is heavily invested in government-supported alternative fuel programs.
 
ridgerunner, Last year I moved my companies investments from a broker to a money manager, Leeb Capital Managment. Leeb’s not an oilman but he took what the oil pessimists were saying and predicted forward. Leeb is a frequent interviewee on Bloomberg and CNBC. In 2004 he published an investment book predicting oil would go to $100/bbl before the end of this decade. In this interview about the book oil was at $35/bbl at the time.

If you listen to these, one of the topics I want you to listen for is Leeb saying the Fed Reserve cannot engineer a Paul Volcker style recession due to all the debt that was out there. This was before the morgage melt. What he was predicting is hyperinflation from the Fed needing to inflate its way out of the problem. What’s going on with the Fed right now? And (I posted this earlier) what is John Williams say along these same lines? financialsense.com/Experts/2008/Williams.html

netcastdaily.com/1experts/2004/exp050804.ram
financialsense.com/Experts/2004/Leeb.html

Then in 2006 Leeb up the prediction to $200/bbl by the end of 2010
netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2006-0311-2.ram
financialsense.com/Experts/2006/Leeb.html

In a letter last week from Leeb they’ve changed the name of the fund from Growth Portfolio to Economic Survival and are investing more into precious metals.
 
ridgerunner, Last year I moved my companies investments from a broker to a money manager, Leeb Capital Managment. Leeb’s not an oilman but he took what the oil pessimists were saying and predicted forward. Leeb is a frequent interviewee on Bloomberg and CNBC. In 2004 he published an investment book predicting oil would go to $100/bbl before the end of this decade. In this interview about the book oil was at $35/bbl at the time.

If you listen to these, one of the topics I want you to listen for is Leeb saying the Fed Reserve cannot engineer a Paul Volcker style recession due to all the debt that was out there. This was before the morgage melt. What he was predicting is hyperinflation from the Fed needing to inflate its way out of the problem. What’s going on with the Fed right now? And (I posted this earlier) what is John Williams say along these same lines? financialsense.com/Experts/2008/Williams.html

netcastdaily.com/1experts/2004/exp050804.ram
financialsense.com/Experts/2004/Leeb.html

Then in 2006 Leeb up the prediction to $200/bbl by the end of 2010
netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2006-0311-2.ram
financialsense.com/Experts/2006/Leeb.html

In a letter last week from Leeb they’ve changed the name of the fund from Growth Portfolio to Economic Survival and are investing more into precious metals.
Among all prognosticators, some invariably turn out to be right. Best of luck to you.
 
Denial? If so then that is why I’m more and more convienced that an oil shortage problem will not be solved before it arrives…because far to many refuse to simple consider it even as a risk managment issue.
 
Denial? If so then that is why I’m more and more convienced that an oil shortage problem will not be solved before it arrives…because far to many refuse to simple consider it even as a risk managment issue.
Which is why I say however long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take a day longer.
 
Well, peak oil isn’t going to be so bad. At least we will have something to eat. Just wait under wind mills and eat the dead birds.

And
You see, lesson 1 is that peak oil is not about peak oil. Peak oil is about the inevitable die-off of industrial society and mankind due to hubris and stupidity. Any news item which advances that thesis… goes in the feed.
I went to www.peakoil.com and visited their forums. It seems most people there are more obsessed with the possible die off instead of peak oil itself. Some seem to take delectation in the die off and actively hope it will come. It is somewhat a secular version of Dispensationalism.
 
Which is why I say however long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take a day longer.
No one would disagree with that, Vern, but do you see any national rally on the level needed or is the US simply going to wait till the gas lines return? I and several others in this do not see the effort being made eventhough I’m certain Bush and Chaney are aware.

“From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I’ll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you’ve got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you’ve got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It’s like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.-- **** Cheney, Chairman of Halliburton in 1999 at the London Institute of Petroleum
 
No one would disagree with that, Vern, but do you see any national rally on the level needed or is the US simply going to wait till the gas lines return? I and several others in this do not see the effort being made eventhough I’m certain Bush and Chaney are aware.
If you and I see the approaching train wreck, it’s our duty to alert others – let’s use this forum and other outlets to do that.
 
If you and I see the approaching train wreck, it’s our duty to alert others – let’s use this forum and other outlets to do that.
That’s what I doing, Vern. Others are doing it too but the response they,and I, get back by the majority is polyannish.

On a national level you can’t begin to solve a problem until it’s acknowledge that problem actually exists or how big it actually is. In the short term I could see oil prices fall but I’m not into playing the short game either with a coming oil cruch 2010-2015 or in hedge funds.

For example: I have a friend I drink coffee with. About 2 years ago I begain tell him that oil price were going to rise. I told him "T Boone Pickes had be very close in his price predictions and was estimating oil would be $70/bbl by January 1st. He patiantly waited for Jan 1st to roll around and because oil was still in the $50s (IIRC $56) he took great pleasure in mocking me as though my tellin him Pickens’ prediction was my prediction. It made no difference to him when when I told him I was looking longer term. Boone Pickens missed his estimate price by IIRC 3 months.

This friend is a yellow dog democrate whose answer to everything oil is now “we just need a new administration and oil prices will fall to $40.”
 
.

This friend is a yellow dog democrate whose answer to everything oil is now “we just need a new administration and oil prices will fall to $40.”
Although I am a godless liberal, I know that isn’t going to happen. I do think a liberal president is more likely to engage in Keynesian policies that will build infrastructure for a more energy efficient economy (such as funding more alternative energy research and building light rails). Republicans will dogmatically yell vacuously “free market!”
 
If you and I see the approaching train wreck, it’s our duty to alert others – let’s use this forum and other outlets to do that.
and BTW, Vern, I read you once ran for office so maybe you understand what I’m saying here:

Any candidate who does not portray him/herself as the answer to an optimistic future has little chance of getting elected. People don’t want to know they have a problem on the horizon.
 
and BTW, Vern, I read you once ran for office so maybe you understand what I’m saying here:

Any candidate who does not portray him/herself as the answer to an optimistic future has little chance of getting elected. People don’t want to know they have a problem on the horizon.
Well, that is a reference against a certain Democratic candidate. I could care less about his attitude he/she conveys to his audience. I only hope his wonks have the conscience and rationality to make sound decisions. Politicians need a facade, but hopefully their wonks will be their brains.

Even liberal think tanks do not have an optimistic view on the future. Just read CBPP’s website AND they haven’t even factored the effects on peak oil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top