New ag reports point to inflation in food prices

posted at 12:15 pm on November 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Fresh on the heels over the debate of whether and when inflation hit food prices, the Department of Agriculture warned yesterday that, well, inflation will hit food prices — and hard.  Projected crop yields, combined with production issues and higher demand in Asia, have put food commodities in an “alarming” position, according to analysts.  That’s good news for farmers, and bad news for just about everybody else:

The agriculture department on Tuesday cut estimates of US corn yields for a third successive month, forecast record soyabean exports to China and warned of the slimmest cotton stocks since 1925. …

Benchmark Chicago corn futures soared above $6 a bushel for the first time since August 2008, before ending lower. Soyabeans rose 4.3 per cent and New York cotton futures posted a record above $1.51 a pound. The price rises have revived fears of a repeat of the global food crisis of 2007-08.

In Europe, milling wheat surpassed a peak reached after Russia banned grain exports in August in response to a devastating drought.

Corn was a special concern.  The staple crop’s projected yield has now been revised downward twice, and the bumper from this year has hit a 15-year low. One of the culprits in this shortage is ethanol production, which has again increased demand, taken more of the harvest, and raised prices.  Those price impacts will be felt in direct costs to consumers for corn-based products, and also from beef prices influenced by the price of corn-based feed.

This report comes in the middle of a debate over the Federal Reserve’s plan for a second round of “quantitative easing,” which essentially prints money in order for the Fed to buy US debt through Treasury bonds.  Sarah Palin warned that inflation had already hit grocery store prices, hitting American consumers in their pocketbooks for staple items, a claim at which the Wall Street Journal’s Sudeep Reddy scoffed while its editorial staff supported Palin.  Reddy later rebutted criticism by writing that Palin had the time frame wrong and that inflation hadn’t occurred until very recently.

That, however, is irrelevant to the question of the Fed’s QE2 policy.  With inflation on food on the rise now and Ag warning of even more inflationary pressures, the last thing American consumers need now — at least at the grocery store — is the prospect of artificial inflationary pressure being added by the Fed, with the backing of the Obama administration.  Weakening the dollar and intentionally stoking inflation will erode the buying power of Americans during a long period of joblessness and underemployment, and the price increases will force consumers into buying less in the long run, not more, which will delay a recovery in the sector where the US most needs it, in consumer activity.

Update: John Podhoretz writes that the QE2 action says something very disturbing about the grasp that the presumed experts have on the American economy:

But whether you think it’s a sound or unwise action — and people I trust are inclined to think it’s a disaster — QE2 is a deeply disturbing sign: It suggests that we have reached the outer limit of what experts actually know about the condition of the American economy in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown and how to repair it. . . .

Even the Fed and its chairman Ben Bernanke know they have undertaken something very risky.

The obvious risk is that, by suggesting that the United States may try to escape its economic doldrums via the monetary printing press, it will create an inflationary spiral and destroy confidence in the stability of US currency.

The less obvious risk is that QE2 will prove ineffectual. If it doesn’t move the needle on the economy at all, but rather seems simply to fall into a black hole, that will confirm the unnerving and growing sense that we are headed for an extraordinarily extended period of extraordinarily low growth and extraordinarily high unemployment.

In other words, Hayek was right; national economies are too complicated for top-down direction.  Glenn Reynolds wonders when the “experts” will get to the really exotic solutions:

Yes, it’s pretty clearly a sign of desperation. But nobody in government is desperate enough to try cutting taxes, government size, and regulation yet. When they’re willing to try that, we’ll know they’ve run through all the other alternatives . . . .

To be fair, Ben Bernanke can’t do any of those things, which is why he’s stuck instead with QE2.  Congress and the President can do those things, but so far obstinately refuse to do so — which is why we just had the largest midterm turnover in Congress in 72 years.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.


Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2 3

Soros/Bernake/Obama/Pelosi/Reid, and others, are going to be laughing all the way to the bank when they bring the middle class to its knees.

RADIOONE on November 10, 2010 at 6:00 PM

I bought a case of Chicken Flavored Vegetable mix from Breedlove Dehydrated Foods the day before yesterday. 600 servings of soup mix for less than $50 including shipping. I used to work there. Great people feeding the world. If hyperinflation hits at least I can eat. If not, it never hurts to have a few hundred extra servings of soup mix around :-)

Ordinary1 on November 10, 2010 at 6:35 PM

We. Don’t. Have. A. Problem. With. Deflation. If you think we do please point to a scintilla of evidence, please.

alwaysfiredup on November 10, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Agreed. We have an inflation problem!

If you don’t understand that deflation does far more damage to an economy than inflation, esp. given US debt obligations abroad.

bayam on November 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Really bayam, you need to do some research

A large number of economists see a real danger in the possibility of deflation. I NEVER said that deflation is currently at play, although there certainly have been deflationary pressures on the economy, starting with some asset prices such as real estate. Yes, commodity prices have gone up in recent months but that’s not a complete picture. Earlier this year, the CPI fell 3 consecutive months.

If you read WSJ or Barron’s, you’d know that the Fed has been focused on protecting the economy from deflation, which once unleashed is very difficult if not impossible to control. Deflation has wreaked havoc on Japan’s economy over the last decade and led to out of control deficits driven by low tax revenues.

You’re not wrong to express concern over the dangers of inflation. But to believe Palin’s empty rhetoric, which fails to pass the credibility test as it never addresses the real dangers of deflation, is unfortunate and reflects a lack of understanding of monetary theory. The US economy is a very complex system and defining problems in overly simplistic and misleading terms doesn’t actually accomplish anything.

bayam on November 10, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Once again, Beck is ahead of the curve on the economy.

When first I started listening to him on radio, maybe 5-6 years ago, I dismissed his dire predictions as hype. But 2-3 years ago I noticed these hype forecasts were all coming true.

Now I know the guy has no formal credentials in economics, or anything else for that matter. But he seems to surround himself with the best talent/advisors, and he has an uncanny knack for learning fast, connecting dots and seeing over the horizon.

I used to take him with a grain of salt. No longer. The guy is worth watching, and worth watching seriously.

petefrt on November 10, 2010 at 6:59 PM

A correction for Mr. Ed: higher food prices are not due to inflation. They are due to a smaller supply of food! This is not inflation.

If the supply of food remained static and prices rose because there was more money in circulation, that would be inflation. Higher prices due to smaller supply is, well, how the market normally works.

Henry Bowman on November 10, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Projected crop yields, combined with production issues and higher demand in Asia, have put food commodities in an “alarming” position, according to analysts.

No, QE2 has done that.

mizflame98 on November 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

corn is for feeding people, not cars.

ajacksonian on November 10, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Corn is for feeding beef.

Beef. It’s whats for dinner.

Well, that and for some roastin’ ears.

And for something to sip while the sun sets.

davidk on November 10, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Nice thing about my parents having enough land to grow stuff, they can grow their own corn if they so choose. They already grow peas, pumpkin, tomatoes, and some other staples, what’s one more? They also have ducks for eggs, so that’s covered too.

cebj25 on November 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM

First, debasement of the money (QE) is going to show up in a general rise in prices, though not evenly.

Second, this sounds like supply and demand factors that are affecting food prices.

Third, Bernanke is trying to fix one problem (deflation resulting from less credit from failed banks in a fractional reserve system) with quite another very dangerous “remedy:” deliberate monetization of Treasury debt.

At some point the stagflation is going to restart, if it hasn’t already.

AshleyTKing on November 10, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Here’s how much anecdotal evidence is worth. Cobs of corn at the grocery store are 20 cents a piece. I could literally fill a cart full of corn for $15. Proof that corn prices are historically low.

TheBlueSite on November 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Oh, and one more point. Grain prices are for bushels. A shopping cart would hold about a bushel. $15 a bushel is about 2.5 times the current price. Sounds expensive to me! :)

dominigan on November 10, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3