Re: You think fuel speculation was bad, wait until you get hit in the bread basket

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:50:05 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Last week, new consumer price data released by the US Labor Department
>confirmed what most shoppers already suspected: Food prices, which took
>their biggest one-month leap in nearly two decades in April, rose even
>further in May. Energy costs, too, went up last month. The big question,
>though, is why?
>
>Commodity analysts are quick to pinpoint reasons: Midwest flooding affecting
>food, livestock feed overdrive provoked by the Chinese, biofuel-related
>demand, and a weak dollar. These reasons all have some merit, but I'd argue
>it's speculation that's skyrocketed prices higher faster, not supply vs.
>demand.
>
>At the financial leaders G8 summit that wrapped up over the weekend, food
>and oil speculation were front and center.And G8 leaders aren't the only
>ones expressing concern over traders profiting from the world's pain. Major
>hedge-fund stars like George Soros and Michael Masters are also screaming
>moral foul on commodity speculation—a clear signal there's more fire than
>smoke on the horizon.
>
>more @
>
>http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...od-prices.html
>

It would be nice for the general public health if Americans dropped
their caloric intake a minimum of 10%.

ted
>

wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:50:05 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Last week, new consumer price data released by the US Labor Department
>> confirmed what most shoppers already suspected: Food prices, which took
>> their biggest one-month leap in nearly two decades in April, rose even
>> further in May. Energy costs, too, went up last month. The big question,
>> though, is why?
>>
>> Commodity analysts are quick to pinpoint reasons: Midwest flooding affecting
>> food, livestock feed overdrive provoked by the Chinese, biofuel-related
>> demand, and a weak dollar. These reasons all have some merit, but I'd argue
>> it's speculation that's skyrocketed prices higher faster, not supply vs.
>> demand.

Speculation is *part* of supply and demand.

Rudy Canoza <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote
> wismel@yahoo.com wrote
>> NotMe <me@privacy.net> wrote

>>> Last week, new consumer price data released by the US Labor
>>> Department confirmed what most shoppers already suspected: Food
>>> prices, which took their biggest one-month leap in nearly two
>>> decades in April, rose even further in May. Energy costs, too, went
>>> up last month. The big question, though, is why?

>>> Commodity analysts are quick to pinpoint reasons: Midwest flooding
>>> affecting food, livestock feed overdrive provoked by the Chinese,
>>> biofuel-related demand, and a weak dollar. These reasons all have
>>> some merit, but I'd argue it's speculation that's skyrocketed
>>> prices higher faster, not supply vs. demand.

> Speculation is *part* of supply and demand.

Nope.

On Jun 21, 3:07 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:50:05 -0500, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Last week, new consumer price data released by the US Labor Department
> >confirmed what most shoppers already suspected: Food prices, which took
> >their biggest one-month leap in nearly two decades in April, rose even
> >further in May. Energy costs, too, went up last month. The big question,
> >though, is why?
>
> >Commodity analysts are quick to pinpoint reasons: Midwest flooding affecting
> >food, livestock feed overdrive provoked by the Chinese, biofuel-related
> >demand, and a weak dollar. These reasons all have some merit, but I'd argue
> >it's speculation that's skyrocketed prices higher faster, not supply vs.
> >demand.
>
> >At the financial leaders G8 summit that wrapped up over the weekend, food
> >and oil speculation were front and center.And G8 leaders aren't the only
> >ones expressing concern over traders profiting from the world's pain. Major
> >hedge-fund stars like George Soros and Michael Masters are also screaming
> >moral foul on commodity speculation—a clear signal there's more fire than
> >smoke on the horizon.
>
> >more @
>
> >http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...ho-benefits-fr...
>
> It would be nice for the general public health if Americans dropped
> their caloric intake a minimum of 10%.
>
> ted
>
>

We might fuel our vehicles a long time on just the excess biofuel
people are carrying around on them.
I like that statement made about the overweight Australians when the
report was issued last week.
"Too many shrimp on the Barbies, mate."