Economy crash =/= stock market crash?

coyrls

You suggested more than food shortages and putting quotation marks round "don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing" doesn't mean anybody said it.

What was said was: "If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.", the implication being that things are not looking that bad, as we do not have rationing.

Sea_Shell

Type_45 said:

Sea_Shell said:

I think "global famine" is a stretch.

If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.


I don't think we'll literally starve.  Yes, we might not have unlimited choice and availability, but will that be a cause or effect 😉

A few months ago I was accused of being a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for suggesting food shortages.

Now I'm simply met with " don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing".

Let's just take a staple like pasta as an example...

Do you think that

a) it just won't be available at any price

b) it will be available but only in one or two forms, rather than the current myriad of choice

c) it'll be widely available, but expensive

d) you'll be restricted (in some way) as to how many packets you can buy

You seem to be expecting (a) to happen, therefore "famine".

Personally I see a mixture of b & d happening again (which we recently witnessed) IF stocks starts to run low, with a bit of c on "posh" pasta! 😉

Type_45

coyrls said:

You suggested more than food shortages and putting quotation marks round "don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing" doesn't mean anybody said it.

What was said was: "If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.", the implication being that things are not looking that bad, as we do not have rationing.

Sea Shell is saying we will have rationing. See above. 

Type_45

Sea_Shell said:

Type_45 said:

Sea_Shell said:

I think "global famine" is a stretch.

If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.


I don't think we'll literally starve.  Yes, we might not have unlimited choice and availability, but will that be a cause or effect 😉

A few months ago I was accused of being a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for suggesting food shortages.

Now I'm simply met with " don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing".

Let's just take a staple like pasta as an example...

Do you think that

a) it just won't be available at any price

b) it will be available but only in one or two forms, rather than the current myriad of choice

c) it'll be widely available, but expensive

d) you'll be restricted (in some way) as to how many packets you can buy

You seem to be expecting (a) to happen, therefore "famine".

Personally I see a mixture of b & d happening again (which we recently witnessed) IF stocks starts to run low, with a bit of c on "posh" pasta! 😉

"Global famine" doesn't mean *everybody* starves, just as "world war" doesn't mean *everybody* is fighting.

masonic

I'm not sure why there is so much use of the future tense. There is rationing at the present time, for example of sunflower oil. It's not set at a limit that will inconvenience normal customers, just as the rationing that took place during the early part of the pandemic. Food security is a bigger problem elsewhere, such as India, which is why they've restricted exports. This will have a knock-on effect and feed through into price. It will be price rather than availability that will see some people go short here, as is already starting to happen. Those with financial security will just begrudgingly pay the higher price.

Type_45

masonic said:

I'm not sure why there is so much use of the future tense. There is rationing at the present time, for example of sunflower oil. It's not set at a limit that will inconvenience normal customers, just as the rationing that took place during the early part of the pandemic. Food security is a bigger problem elsewhere, such as India, which is why they've restricted exports. This will have a knock-on effect and feed through into price. It will be price rather than availability that will see some people go short here, as is already starting to happen. Those with financial security will just begrudgingly pay the higher price.

Do you think the 1.5 billion people who will go hungry (that is the CEO of Citi's quote, as shared by video by someone else on this thread), won't affect capital markets?

masonic

Type_45 said:

masonic said:

I'm not sure why there is so much use of the future tense. There is rationing at the present time, for example of sunflower oil. It's not set at a limit that will inconvenience normal customers, just as the rationing that took place during the early part of the pandemic. Food security is a bigger problem elsewhere, such as India, which is why they've restricted exports. This will have a knock-on effect and feed through into price. It will be price rather than availability that will see some people go short here, as is already starting to happen. Those with financial security will just begrudgingly pay the higher price.

Do you think the 1.5 billion people who will go hungry (that is the CEO of Citi's quote, as shared by video by someone else on this thread), won't affect capital markets?

I wouldn't presume that it hasn't already affected them.

grumiofoundation

Type_45 said:

coyrls said:

You suggested more than food shortages and putting quotation marks round "don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing" doesn't mean anybody said it.

What was said was: "If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.", the implication being that things are not looking that bad, as we do not have rationing.

Sea Shell is saying we will have rationing. See above. 

No they didn’t.

Do you know what the word ‘if’ means? 

Type_45

grumiofoundation said:

Type_45 said:

coyrls said:

You suggested more than food shortages and putting quotation marks round "don't exaggerate, we'll just have war-time-like rationing" doesn't mean anybody said it.

What was said was: "If things were looking that bad, then I'm pretty sure "richer" countries would adopt "war" rationing as a last resort.", the implication being that things are not looking that bad, as we do not have rationing.

Sea Shell is saying we will have rationing. See above. 

No they didn’t.

Do you know what the word ‘if’ means? 

There is no 'if', so that caveat is obsolete. Food is already depleting and it will get worse.

Type_45

masonic said:

Type_45 said:

masonic said:

I'm not sure why there is so much use of the future tense. There is rationing at the present time, for example of sunflower oil. It's not set at a limit that will inconvenience normal customers, just as the rationing that took place during the early part of the pandemic. Food security is a bigger problem elsewhere, such as India, which is why they've restricted exports. This will have a knock-on effect and feed through into price. It will be price rather than availability that will see some people go short here, as is already starting to happen. Those with financial security will just begrudgingly pay the higher price.

Do you think the 1.5 billion people who will go hungry (that is the CEO of Citi's quote, as shared by video by someone else on this thread), won't affect capital markets?

I wouldn't presume that it hasn't already affected them.

It hasn't happened yet, other than in Sri Lanka. And food inflation hasn't impacted the UK at all, as far as I have personally seen. 

Even energy costs haven't filtered through in the UK yet. They've literally just gone up as we've switched out heating off.

The markets have absolutely not priced this stuff in.