Sri Lanka's debt crisis is a warning to the world. The World Bank says a global debt storm is coming. It could engulf 70 developing countries & make their economies fall like dominoes. What are the threats they face?

It's surprising how many large and small countries depend on their wheat coming from other countries.

Some would say, only a One World Govt. could solve this. Or a Great Reset, where all debt was forgiven...

https://youtu.be/CdrLp0lKjHc

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

Change is inevitable, always is. I'm as capitalist and conservative as they come, yet even I realize that nothing lasts forever and as we evolve as a species, so too does our way of life.

Our current economic system has been great, its served us well (for the most part), but its usefulness is coming to an end.

ACDC8 wrote:

Change is inevitable, always is. I'm as capitalist and conservative as they come, yet even I realize that nothing lasts forever and as we evolve as a species, so too does our way of life.

Our current economic system has been great, its served us well (for the most part), but its usefulness is coming to an end.

Interesting take....what do you think can replace the current system?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Sri Lanka's debt crisis is a warning to the world. The World Bank says a global debt storm is coming. It could engulf 70 developing countries & make their economies fall like dominoes. What are the threats they face?

It's surprising how many large and small countries depend on their wheat coming from other countries.

Some would say, only a One World Govt. could solve this. Or a Great Reset, where all debt was forgiven...

https://youtu.be/CdrLp0lKjHc

Sadly it isn't just Sri Lanka, but many countries who would face similar as most countries have ever-extended themselves time and time again and continue to do so. Printing money like crazy hoping things will take care by itself. Sooner or later, it will happen with most countries including the U.S.

If the wealth in the world doesn't trickle down and be seen to do so beware those at the top.

You should see it first in the middle east. No place in the world has a bigger disparity in wealth than the oil states and their neighbors.

Bank of England governor sounds ‘apocalyptic’ warning on food shortages due to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bank ... 00338.html

May 17, 2022

Soft Paywall

The Bank of England governor sounded an “apocalyptic” warning on Monday over looming food shortages caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Andrew Bailey told MPs of his “major worry” over food supplies, particularly to the developing world.

Appearing before the Commons Treasury Committee, he was asked about a range of subjects.

“I’m afraid the one I’m going to sound I guess apocalyptic about is food,” he said.

Mr Bailey added that after speaking with the Ukrainian finance minister at an International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, future supplies of many staple foods were in doubt.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Bank of England governor sounds ‘apocalyptic’ warning on food shortages due to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bank ... 00338.html

May 17, 2022

Soft Paywall

The Bank of England governor sounded an “apocalyptic” warning on Monday over looming food shortages caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Andrew Bailey told MPs of his “major worry” over food supplies, particularly to the developing world.

Appearing before the Commons Treasury Committee, he was asked about a range of subjects.

“I’m afraid the one I’m going to sound I guess apocalyptic about is food,” he said.

Mr Bailey added that after speaking with the Ukrainian finance minister at an International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, future supplies of many staple foods were in doubt.

Because of the heat-wave in India and elsewhere food grains are going to be an issue in India and similar highs in food prices

Aaron747 wrote:

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

Billionaires own companies, I doubt they would care much about debt being forgiven. In fact some of them (Elon anyone) also have plenty of debts, so you would make them richer.

Government debt is being rolled over continuously, I don't see why that can't continue for a long time still.

Food shortages have really nothing to do with it. I agree that some international cooperation must happen here, it would make sense for example to reduce meat production in countries where a lot is made, to redirect the grain given to animals towards human consumption.

pune wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Bank of England governor sounds ‘apocalyptic’ warning on food shortages due to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bank ... 00338.html

May 17, 2022

Soft Paywall

The Bank of England governor sounded an “apocalyptic” warning on Monday over looming food shortages caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Andrew Bailey told MPs of his “major worry” over food supplies, particularly to the developing world.

Appearing before the Commons Treasury Committee, he was asked about a range of subjects.

“I’m afraid the one I’m going to sound I guess apocalyptic about is food,” he said.

Mr Bailey added that after speaking with the Ukrainian finance minister at an International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington, future supplies of many staple foods were in doubt.

Because of the heat-wave in India and elsewhere food grains are going to be an issue in India and similar highs in food prices

India went from 122 million metric tons of wheat to 100 million as the weather deteriorated. The reversal is unfortunately understandable with about a twenty percent drop in yield.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/econom ... 603145.cms

It is my opinion the fertilizer shortage will make this crisis worse. Too much debt and money printing leave no tension in the system. Since you cannot push a rope or make food appear without putting seed in ground with everything.

The slack in the system is gone. I don't know the easy solution. I personally think yields in the fall will decline due to lack of fertilizer. This is the start of a multi-year problem, in my opinion.

To think, in December and January Ukraine exported record sunflower oil. It is my opinion, that food oil will be the bigger global problem. Although, the wheat deficit is bad too.

https://www.apk-inform.com/en/news/1525 ... %20a%20row.

Aaron747 wrote:

Interesting take....what do you think can replace the current system?

No idea, but it will change as the world changes.

Just as the world was trying to begin a legitimate recovery from the pandemic, the Russians had to start the biggest war in Europe since WW2 which in turn could lead to a catastrophic global food shortage that could possibly be worse than the pandemic when it comes to global instability and suffering.

Now I'm just a simple caveman lawyer/economist, but if the US contributes heavily to the World Food Bank and to the IMF (which I suspect it does), then, allowing Sri Lanka to buy Russian Oil, and, allowing Sri Lanka to get money/aide from the IMF and the WFB, seems to be "robbing Peter to pay Paul."


The AP Interview: Sri Lanka PM says he’s open to Russian oil

Sri Lanka is also seeking financial assistance from the World Food Program, which may send a team to the country soon, and Wickremesinghe is banking on a bailout package from the International Monetary Fund. But even if approved, he doesn’t expect to see money from the package until October onwards.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 19b3cf6418

readytotaxi wrote:

If the wealth in the world doesn't trickle down and be seen to do so beware those at the top.

Looks what’s happened to the wealthy of Russia they’ve had all there wealth take from them, I don’t see any reason why we can also take all the wealth of our own billionaires?

Aaron747 wrote:

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

"The Great Reset" make 0 sense in solving this problem. The current food and fuel price increase and shortage, is ultimate caused by lack of supply as well as logistic network disruption.
Telling companies to earn less profit, isn't going to produce more crops, nor help them be delivered more efficiently around the world, especially from Eastern Europe.

Doocy: "President Biden once bragged about the stock market hitting record after record after record on my watch. How about now?"

KJP: "Meaning the stock market --"

Doocy: "All the gains from President Biden's time in office have been wiped out."


https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/ ... 6668889088

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday couldn’t defend Joe Biden’s abysmal economy.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) surged 0.8% or 257.86 points to close at 31,188.38 on January 21, 2021, marking its all-time closing high on the first day following Joe Biden’s inauguration.

From December 2021 – January 2022 to today the Dow Jones has plummeted over 6,000 points.

On Monday the Dow plunged over 600 points at the start of trading.

This evening the DOW closed at 30,516. The DOW was down 876 points on the day.

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about Biden’s previous claims the stock market hit record after record on his watch.

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

"The Great Reset" make 0 sense in solving this problem. The current food and fuel price increase and shortage, is ultimate caused by lack of supply as well as logistic network disruption.
Telling companies to earn less profit, isn't going to produce more crops, nor help them be delivered more efficiently around the world, especially from Eastern Europe.

I was talking about the debt storm, not the food crisis.

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

"The Great Reset" make 0 sense in solving this problem. The current food and fuel price increase and shortage, is ultimate caused by lack of supply as well as logistic network disruption.
Telling companies to earn less profit, isn't going to produce more crops, nor help them be delivered more efficiently around the world, especially from Eastern Europe.

I was talking about the debt storm, not the food crisis.

The debt is caused by mismanagement of their financial resources, and there are already ways like default for countries which cannot pay their debt to get out of it.
And "The Great Reset" is more about how companies are run and interact with the society, rather than relationship between national governments and international financial institute, according to my understanding.
Furthermore, while the circumstance is exceptional, if your intended use of the term of reset is to reset their debt, then it could cause them to repeatedly ask for or do the same ibto the future, like some Latin America countries, losing trusts from investors and inhibiting growth in those countries into the future. It would be less damaging if governments agree to adjust the interest rate and voluntarily extend repayment time to reduce damages on countries facing financial troubles now, I think.

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

"The Great Reset" make 0 sense in solving this problem. The current food and fuel price increase and shortage, is ultimate caused by lack of supply as well as logistic network disruption.
Telling companies to earn less profit, isn't going to produce more crops, nor help them be delivered more efficiently around the world, especially from Eastern Europe.

I was talking about the debt storm, not the food crisis.

The debt is caused by mismanagement of their financial resources, and there are already ways like default for countries which cannot pay their debt to get out of it.
And "The Great Reset" is more about how companies are run and interact with the society, rather than relationship between national governments and international financial institute, according to my understanding.
Furthermore, while the circumstance is exceptional, if your intended use of the term of reset is to reset their debt, then it could cause them to repeatedly ask for or do the same ibto the future, like some Latin America countries, losing trusts from investors and inhibiting growth in those countries into the future. It would be less damaging if governments agree to adjust the interest rate and voluntarily extend repayment time to reduce damages on countries facing financial troubles now, I think.

Interest rates are going up.

There is no cost free default. Just as there is no cost free printing of money (more money chasing goods creates inflation).

The shortage of food will be, unfortunately, "interesting." Fertilizer is important. The green revolution happened thanks to chemical fertilizer. Per the following link, 3 billion people are fed off the added yield of chemical fertilizer. There is a reason we stopped doing fertilizer the old fashioned way. With the USA subsiding fertilizer to the tune of $750 million, that means less for others.

https://www.hngn.com/articles/242320/20 ... pening.htm

We have three crisis coming, in my opinion: Debt, housing costs, and food.

Interesting times...

Lightsaber

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Sri Lanka's debt crisis is a warning to the world. The World Bank says a global debt storm is coming. It could engulf 70 developing countries & make their economies fall like dominoes. What are the threats they face?

It's surprising how many large and small countries depend on their wheat coming from other countries.

Some would say, only a One World Govt. could solve this. Or a Great Reset, where all debt was forgiven...

https://youtu.be/CdrLp0lKjHc

Meanwhile US and China actually lead the way in global debt...

Speaking of that - the Chinese debt is definitely another wildcard thrown in.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/31/china-f ... ll-it.html

It's getting bad in China itself, but of course nobody really knows the full extent of "bad" due to the restricted information. All those absurd "covid zero" lockdown doesn't help, but the real estate mess (remember Evergrande?) is where the problem really lies. All those "ghost cities"? Nice looking infrastructure that only looks nice?

-----------
Then there's food shortage...it's going to get really bad in developing world.

Interest rates as is observed when looking at Japan since 1990 are somewhat artificial. One of the biggest sources of value is the money the top 10% has to invest, and not many places to invest. Buffet and Munger are having a hard time finding appr. priced stocks and/or companies. Retired people are awash with cash. Eventually the post baby boomers will be cashing in.

Looking at the demographic, those dying two generations back may have left hundreds, one back - thousands, current demographic about to kick off - 100s of thousands. And no, inflation doesn't come even close to eating it up.

lightsaber wrote:

Interest rates are going up.

There is no cost free default. Just as there is no cost free printing of money (more money chasing goods creates inflation).

The shortage of food will be, unfortunately, "interesting." Fertilizer is important. The green revolution happened thanks to chemical fertilizer. Per the following link, 3 billion people are fed off the added yield of chemical fertilizer. There is a reason we stopped doing fertilizer the old fashioned way. With the USA subsiding fertilizer to the tune of $750 million, that means less for others.

https://www.hngn.com/articles/242320/20 ... pening.htm

We have three crisis coming, in my opinion: Debt, housing costs, and food.

Interesting times...

Lightsaber

- There are no cost free default but so is all other plan
- Fertilizer is also related to fossil fuel. With current fossil fuel price and supply constrain, fertilizer would also be affected. Year 2021 South and Southeast Asia already experiencing this.

Kiwirob wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

If the wealth in the world doesn't trickle down and be seen to do so beware those at the top.

Looks what’s happened to the wealthy of Russia they’ve had all there wealth take from them, I don’t see any reason why we can also take all the wealth of our own billionaires?

.For some reason I don't think this sentiment would pass even in liberal Silicon Valley.

Kiwirob wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

If the wealth in the world doesn't trickle down and be seen to do so beware those at the top.

Looks what’s happened to the wealthy of Russia they’ve had all there wealth take from them, I don’t see any reason why we can also take all the wealth of our own billionaires?

Unfortunately what is being talked about is the masses, not our need to punish those who are successful on the backs of the people.
However, to follow your trend of thought, the funds taken from the wealthy Russians, what is it being used for: Pay for Russian oil still being bought by Europe, given to Ukraine to purchase weapons to fight (if so why all the US lend lease and EU loans), given to the Ukrainian people to purchase food and other essentials, purchase materials to rebuild, given to third countries directly affected by the invasion, or is it being stored in western banks growing interest and assisting the financial coffers of the nations who sized the funds?

The biggest issue in my opinion of the flaw in the current financial models is governments not being content to control the economies by protective laws, they want more direct control by ensuring that most workers are employed by government. All that means is that they are slow to react, most jobs generate no revenue thus taxes must be high, wage and benefit cost have nothing to do with economic performance since most government jobs do not charge enough in fees to be called revenue so increasing taxes in more and more creative ways becomes important.
I am a supporter of smaller government, the private sector has always been more efficient, there are ups and downs, and if governments pay more attention to protective rule / regulations / laws the system would work much better. The tear down of financial pillars in the early 2000's generated lots of financial activity, that it took so long for regulators to adjust in my mind was a key cause of disruption, the laws were passed after things went south, so its obvious they could see and understand.

par13del wrote:

I am a supporter of smaller government, the private sector has always been more efficient, there are ups and downs, and if governments pay more attention to protective rule / regulations / laws the system would work much better. The tear down of financial pillars in the early 2000's generated lots of financial activity, that it took so long for regulators to adjust in my mind was a key cause of disruption, the laws were passed after things went south, so its obvious they could see and understand.

Everybody loves small government, until things go south and everybody starts crying for regulation & government support. Cosider the recent baby formula shortage: The DoD contracted aircraft to import formula from abroad - which really isn't the job of the military - while the private sector would've happily let children starve.

At the same time, 'small government' policies have cut funding to tax enforcement and market supervision, unsurprisingly making it increasingly difficult to adequately tax corporations and rich individuals. Monopolies and price-gouging behaviors are left uncontrolled due to a lack of government resources. Instead, low hanging fruit such as middle- and lower-class incomes are being targeted. Small investors are left on their own while certain individuals and institutions use their wealth, influence and media coverage to openly manipulate stocks without punishment.

mxaxai wrote:

Everybody loves small government, until things go south and everybody starts crying for regulation & government support. Cosider the recent baby formula shortage: The DoD contracted aircraft to import formula from abroad - which really isn't the job of the military - while the private sector would've happily let children starve.

Interesting. How do you suppose the "private sector" should have reacted to the baby formula shortage? What player do you think has the resources to on spec go to say Europe, then buy and transport said formula to the US, navigating all the regulations that are in place? At what cost? To what end? And probably be called "price gougers" to boot.

mxaxai wrote:

At the same time, 'small government' policies have cut funding to tax enforcement and market supervision, unsurprisingly making it increasingly difficult to adequately tax corporations and rich individuals. Monopolies and price-gouging behaviors are left uncontrolled due to a lack of government resources.

I agree. I'm trying to think about the last time a merger was blocked on anti-trust grounds or a price gouging charge has been successfully brought, despite all the shrieking from politicians who pretend they care about such things.

mxaxai wrote:

Instead, low hanging fruit such as middle- and lower-class incomes are being targeted. Small investors are left on their own while certain individuals and institutions use their wealth, influence and media coverage to openly manipulate stocks without punishment.

Not true. Biden promised that no-one who made less than $400K would pay a dime more in taxes. That is an absurdly high bar IMO, but I suppose he doesn't want to hurt the tennis games of suburban women.

mxaxai wrote:

par13del wrote:

I am a supporter of smaller government, the private sector has always been more efficient, there are ups and downs, and if governments pay more attention to protective rule / regulations / laws the system would work much better. The tear down of financial pillars in the early 2000's generated lots of financial activity, that it took so long for regulators to adjust in my mind was a key cause of disruption, the laws were passed after things went south, so its obvious they could see and understand.

Everybody loves small government, until things go south and everybody starts crying for regulation & government support. Cosider the recent baby formula shortage: The DoD contracted aircraft to import formula from abroad - which really isn't the job of the military - while the private sector would've happily let children starve.

So the reason why there was a shortage in the first place was......and how did the government let it get to a shortage before they acted.
If the nation of the USA was in a real formula shortage a couple C-17's would not be enough, one would have expected to see trailer trucks crossing the borders of Canada and Mexico (no shortage) and a container ship or two inbound from Europe.

par13del wrote:

So the reason why there was a shortage in the first place was......and how did the government let it get to a shortage before they acted.
If the nation of the USA was in a real formula shortage a couple C-17's would not be enough, one would have expected to see trailer trucks crossing the borders of Canada and Mexico (no shortage) and a container ship or two inbound from Europe.

Well, they let it come to a shortage by letting the private sector do as they please and maximize shareholder return. Small government, you know. No redundancies or plans for crisis, contaminated food that was uncovered by the FDA only after several illnesses, and overall fragile supply chains. The private sector knows how to maximize efficiency but the slightest hickup will let thing break down - and that's when they come running back to the government to take over and solve the mess they created.

Kiwirob wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

If the wealth in the world doesn't trickle down and be seen to do so beware those at the top.

Looks what’s happened to the wealthy of Russia they’ve had all there wealth take from them, I don’t see any reason why we can also take all the wealth of our own billionaires?

We could have one hell of a party if we dismantled privately held wealth. (Arguably stimulus / inflation is quite similar).

The trouble is, what do we do in year 3 when there is no more private wealth to take…. The enterprises like Microsoft for example, take 20-30 years to fully develop. Nationalizing private assets destroys national productivity, after which it takes decades to recover… and that’s if they stop doing it.

Russia’s billionaires were largely kleptocrats. The Us has rule of law. Imo, it is a mistake to compare US politics or wealth to Russian or Chinese, because dictatorship changes everything. We have legitimate government; they don’t.

mxaxai wrote:

par13del wrote:

So the reason why there was a shortage in the first place was......and how did the government let it get to a shortage before they acted.
If the nation of the USA was in a real formula shortage a couple C-17's would not be enough, one would have expected to see trailer trucks crossing the borders of Canada and Mexico (no shortage) and a container ship or two inbound from Europe.

Well, they let it come to a shortage by letting the private sector do as they please and maximize shareholder return. Small government, you know. No redundancies or plans for crisis, contaminated food that was uncovered by the FDA only after several illnesses, and overall fragile supply chains. The private sector knows how to maximize efficiency but the slightest hickup will let thing break down - and that's when they come running back to the government to take over and solve the mess they created.

Since you chose not to respond to

How do you suppose the "private sector" should have reacted to the baby formula shortage? What player do you think has the resources to on spec go to say Europe, then buy and transport said formula to the US, navigating all the regulations that are in place? At what cost? To what end? And probably be called "price gougers" to boot.

Yes, the private sector aims for efficiency by attempting to match production capacity to demand. Are you suggesting that manufacturers build extra idle factories as a contingency plan if one goes down? They had better build it near an existing facility, or how would they staff it? I suppose government could do better, with their unlimited taxation and borrowing resources. Is that your solution?

The inspection routines obviously left much to be desired, I guess when we say smaller government they take it to mean no inspections, as for fragile supply chains, if the government shuts down the country, what do we expect? Back to the Federal versus State rights or Trump versus anyone.....in any event, an interesting read about Abbott
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abbott-bab ... o-restart/

The Government used to care about competition and approved very few mergers. That ended in the 90's.

No way any company should have more that 5 or 10% of market share in any "critical" industry. Softball manufactures - no problem. Baby food makers - yep. Time to start breaking companies up.

par13del wrote:

The inspection routines obviously left much to be desired, I guess when we say smaller government they take it to mean no inspections, as for fragile supply chains, if the government shuts down the country, what do we expect? Back to the Federal versus State rights or Trump versus anyone.....in any event, an interesting read about Abbott
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abbott-bab ... o-restart/

When it was proposed that taxes be cut and the government be made smaller, our friends on the left used to say "Oh sure, does that include the police too?" How times have changed.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The Government used to care about competition and approved very few mergers. That ended in the 90's.

No way any company should have more that 5 or 10% of market share in any "critical" industry. Softball manufactures - no problem. Baby food makers - yep. Time to start breaking companies up.

I don't know if that's the number, but I could well support that notion. And FFS get the critical stuff back to domestic production.

Bricktop wrote:

Yes, the private sector aims for efficiency by attempting to match production capacity to demand. Are you suggesting that manufacturers build extra idle factories as a contingency plan if one goes down? They had better build it near an existing facility, or how would they staff it? I suppose government could do better, with their unlimited taxation and borrowing resources. Is that your solution?

Preparing stuff "just in case" is literally what the government does. Why do you think the food industry is given massive subsidies? To ensure that a larger-than-necessary harvest is paid for in regular years, overcapacity that comes in handy when environmental factors like droughts reduce the output. There are no such provisions on the food processing side, which - coupled with increased market concentration and shutting down smaller facilities in the name of efficiency - can lead to situations like we saw with baby formular. One unexpectedly closed factory and a good chunk of the supply is gone.

There are many more examples of government contigency plans: Strategic stockpiles of gas and oil, reserve powerplants, secondary infrastructure, catastrophe mitigation equipment etc. The military is a massive expenditure that isn't actually supposed to see regular use (at least not to its full capability).

You can cut all that in the name of "small government" and outsource it to the private sector. Deregulate it and cut funding from supervising government agencies. But then don't cry when essential products like food, electricity, mobility or security become too expensive or unavailable for parts of the population. The private sector doesn't care if people starve, if they freeze to death, or if they're forced to sell their cars and homes, as long as the profits are right.

Then you are not advocating against "small government", you are advocating for "ubiquitous government".

I would consider a government stockpile of baby formula important, and would not object to paying for it. Probably other things also. I know we have strategic reserves of rare earth metals, etc. Formula is perishable, but its stock can certainly be rotated into government assistance programs.

mxaxai wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Yes, the private sector aims for efficiency by attempting to match production capacity to demand. Are you suggesting that manufacturers build extra idle factories as a contingency plan if one goes down? They had better build it near an existing facility, or how would they staff it? I suppose government could do better, with their unlimited taxation and borrowing resources. Is that your solution?

Preparing stuff "just in case" is literally what the government does. Why do you think the food industry is given massive subsidies? To ensure that a larger-than-necessary harvest is paid for in regular years, overcapacity that comes in handy when environmental factors like droughts reduce the output. There are no such provisions on the food processing side, which - coupled with increased market concentration and shutting down smaller facilities in the name of efficiency - can lead to situations like we saw with baby formular. One unexpectedly closed factory and a good chunk of the supply is gone.

There are many more examples of government contigency plans: Strategic stockpiles of gas and oil, reserve powerplants, secondary infrastructure, catastrophe mitigation equipment etc. The military is a massive expenditure that isn't actually supposed to see regular use (at least not to its full capability).

You can cut all that in the name of "small government" and outsource it to the private sector. Deregulate it and cut funding from supervising government agencies. But then don't cry when essential products like food, electricity, mobility or security become too expensive or unavailable for parts of the population. The private sector doesn't care if people starve, if they freeze to death, or if they're forced to sell their cars and homes, as long as the profits are right.

The food industry does not get subsides for the reasons you stated. They get money for protectionist reasons, because the American regulatory environment increases the costs of production domestically and without those subsidies, just about all food production would move overseas. These subsidies generate a lot of waste of money and of food. In some cases, they even result in effectively subsidizing high fructose corn syrup…. subsidizing obesity and diabetes.

PPVRA wrote:

In some cases, they even result in effectively subsidizing high fructose corn syrup…. subsidizing obesity and diabetes.

I have syrup in something or other every few years. I have heard of corn syrup but have no idea what it is. Is it a big thing in the US? What do people use it for?

art wrote:

I have syrup in something or other every few years. I have heard of corn syrup but have no idea what it is. Is it a big thing in the US? What do people use it for?

HFCS is a cheap substitute for sugar, extracted from our overly subsidized corn industry. HFCS is basically banned in the EU and many other countries around the world, but in America, we care far more about profits than public health, so that crap is legal here.

LittleFokker wrote:

art wrote:

I have syrup in something or other every few years. I have heard of corn syrup but have no idea what it is. Is it a big thing in the US? What do people use it for?

HFCS is a cheap substitute for sugar, extracted from our overly subsidized corn industry. HFCS is basically banned in the EU and many other countries around the world, but in America, we care far more about profits than public health, so that crap is legal here.

Thanks for the response.

What is the anti-acronym of HFCS? And why is it bad for health?

PS Do people in America pour syrup over food to sweeten it?

art wrote:

Thanks for the response.

What is the anti-acronym of HFCS? And why is it bad for health?

PS Do people in America pour syrup over food to sweeten it?

HFCS = High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's synthetic, so the body doesn't digest it the way it would otherwise digest sugar, which leads to higher instances of diabetes and heart disease. HFCS isn't sold as an individual product, but rather it's used as a sugar substitute in many sweet things - soda, candy, chocolate, bread - anything that they can swap out sugar for HFCS as ingredient, they will.

LittleFokker wrote:

art wrote:

Thanks for the response.

What is the anti-acronym of HFCS? And why is it bad for health?

PS Do people in America pour syrup over food to sweeten it?

HFCS = High Fructose Corn Syrup. It's synthetic, so the body doesn't digest it the way it would otherwise digest sugar, which leads to higher instances of diabetes and heart disease. HFCS isn't sold as an individual product, but rather it's used as a sugar substitute in many sweet things - soda, candy, chocolate, bread - anything that they can swap out sugar for HFCS as ingredient, they will.

Thanks for the info.

mxaxai wrote:

par13del wrote:

So the reason why there was a shortage in the first place was......and how did the government let it get to a shortage before they acted.
If the nation of the USA was in a real formula shortage a couple C-17's would not be enough, one would have expected to see trailer trucks crossing the borders of Canada and Mexico (no shortage) and a container ship or two inbound from Europe.

Well, they let it come to a shortage by letting the private sector do as they please and maximize shareholder return. Small government, you know. No redundancies or plans for crisis, contaminated food that was uncovered by the FDA only after several illnesses, and overall fragile supply chains. The private sector knows how to maximize efficiency but the slightest hickup will let thing break down - and that's when they come running back to the government to take over and solve the mess they created.

Were water supply from Flint public or private? How does that compares to the example you have here?

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsig ... age-crisis

Argentina government mandate turning more food into fuel in an attempt to alleviate fuel shortage

Aaron747 wrote:

The Great Reset makes the most sense, but the current crop of global billionaires would stand to lose too much to sign off.

I never tire of hearing Americans, who grew up in the wealthiest and most comfortable large nation the world has ever known, talk about Great Reset.

A “great reset” would almost inevitably involve the power going out and you and me starving and dying within 90 days.

art wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

In some cases, they even result in effectively subsidizing high fructose corn syrup…. subsidizing obesity and diabetes.

I have syrup in something or other every few years. I have heard of corn syrup but have no idea what it is. Is it a big thing in the US? What do people use it for?

To add just how ubiquitous it is here in the US, I first thought you were being sarcastic since it seems to be in everything here. My ignorance was that I didn’t know it wasn’t as common everywhere else.

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/economy/ha ... 80133.html

Another example showing interconnection between energy and food
Half of Vietnam fishing boats can't go fishing due to fuel being too expensive

SL1200MK2 wrote:

art wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

In some cases, they even result in effectively subsidizing high fructose corn syrup…. subsidizing obesity and diabetes.

I have syrup in something or other every few years. I have heard of corn syrup but have no idea what it is. Is it a big thing in the US? What do people use it for?

To add just how ubiquitous it is here in the US, I first thought you were being sarcastic since it seems to be in everything here. My ignorance was that I didn’t know it wasn’t as common everywhere else.

According to my understanding, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan all see widespread use of HFCS in soft drinks. But while every once in a while there would be local articles from within the region talking about it, most information I learned about HFCS are still from international English sites, and I really doubt regular residents within the region who won't read English information frequently have much idea what is HFCS. Not to mention, many times HFCS aren't even being labelled as HFCS on food label, but rather some specifically defined industrial names.