Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dramatic rise in the worldwide cost of food
Topic Started: Apr 12 2008, 06:12 PM (619 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
38957
Apr 14 2008, 01:42 PM
As long as they don't put the squeeze on hot pockets, I won't complain too loudly.

I noticed the price of Hot Pockets had risen in my local grocery store. They used to be on sale, at three boxes for $5, but now they are two boxes for $4. I don't know what the base price is, since I only buy them on sale, and when my wife gives me a coupon.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dandandat
Apr 14 2008, 10:34 AM
somerled
Apr 14 2008, 11:25 AM
Well , rather than building more oil refineries , which will likely become exteemely expensive white elephants in a decade or two when petrol is priced out the reach of a lot / or most car owners , the big oil companies could get their collective arses into gear with regards getting the hydrogen cycle widely out their , so could the major car makers , and phasing out petroleum as a fuel all together.

ROE is to small to make it a worth while investment, untill that changes dont expect change.

True, or ROI either.

Of course, in Somerled's world, the government can force those evil oil companies to perform research that loses money.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
^^^

If they where smart they would do it on their own. Unfortunately most investors are two short cited and uninterested. They demand short term gains at the expense of long term viability and so management will seek short term gains at the expense of long term viability.

As for the oil companies being evil, they are involved in many anti completive practices; that just makes them criminal not evil. The Government should litigate them and make them stop their criminal actions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Posted Image
This is in one of the British newspapers today and it gives an idea of how prices have risen here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Quote:
 
I hate to tell you, but the hydrogen cycle IS the petroleum industry. Oil is a hydrocarbon, after all.
yes there is hydrogen in hydrocarbons.

Quote:
 
The government is not going to put their "feet down hard" on "big oil" because "big oil" is owned by the the same people who put them into office, all those millions of folks who are their shareholders. The thing about Utopian dreams is that they are just dreams.

If you mean having cars running off of hydrogen instead, that just isn't ever going to happen. I figured you'd know that hydrogen-tight connections are far more expensive than what is currently used. You aren't going to see a hydrogen station the way you would a gas (petrol) station. That's just not going to happen. Besides, even if you could do all this, because you need fossil fuels to create hydrogen economically. Indeed, the idea of having a high pressure tankful of an odorless and colorless flammable gas doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

that’s just an engineering problem , and it has been solved ….


Quote:
 
Lastly, who is going to pay to develop the infrastructure?
the same organizations who developed the petroleum based infrastructure , if they have any smarts.


Quote:
 
Sorry, but oil is the only substance with sufficient energy per cubic centimeter to fuel our infrastructure. No, we aren't going to be forced to give up our cars (you first, by the way) and given bicycles and forced to ride trolleys and trains. It didn't work for Red China, and it won't work for the rest of the civilized world.
not while most city dwellers choose to live in suburbs that are sometimes over an hour by car from where they work and urban public transport systems are hopeless , or as is often the case , virtually non-existent.

Quote:
 
EDIT: I almost forgot to add, most additional refinery production in this country would be done as add-ons to existing refinery production. The plans already exist. Turnaround is more like four years.
for small upgrades only.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Situation here : Food costs are up, and there's more pain in store
Quote:
 
March 8, 2008

THE cost of a range of basic grocery items has risen well above inflation over the past five years and industry experts warn that prices are set to increase further in 2008.

The prolonged drought, soaring farm business costs, high grain prices and booming overseas demand for some Australian produce is putting pressure on food prices.

An Age investigation has found that most of the key segments of Victorian agriculture believe the price people pay for their products at the supermarket will jump this year.

Food industry analysts expect prices to rise and while supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles are reluctant to forecast higher prices, they do say that cost pressures are increasing.

Farmers say some of the rises are essential to stop them going broke as they grapple with the rising cost of inputs such as fertiliser, which has doubled in the past year. This will affect most key staples such as milk, butter, bread and flour.

An Age analysis of average fruit, vegetable, meat and dairy prices recorded in Melbourne by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows how the price of many popular groceries jumped between 2002 and 2007.

Potatoes and carrots rose 32% and 28.7% a kilogram respectively. The average price of bananas outstripped them both — up 32.7%. Over the same five-year period, the CPI in Melbourne rose 14%.

The review of the ABS surveys shows considerable variation in meat price changes. The ABS found that on average, a kilogram of rump steak in the December quarter of 2007 cost $18.96 in Melbourne, up 24.7% on five years earlier, while lamb loin chops rose 35.6% to $16.45.

Tim Hunt, a senior dairy and food retail analyst at rural finance bank Rabobank, said food price inflation was being fuelled by three key factors: rising demand for Australian produce overseas; rising feed, water and other production costs; and local product shortages. Higher oil and energy prices were also pushing up processing, packaging and distribution costs.

"The reason why I expect to see food price inflation continue to remain vigorous well into 2008 is that it's unlikely many of those factors will reverse," he said.

Mr Hunt said that although Australia's supermarket sector was highly concentrated by global standards, vigorous price competition occurred between the main players.

Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Dick Wells warned that production, packaging and transport costs were all rising. "I don't see too many signs of a decrease in the cost of fuel, fertiliser or labour over the next period so that is going to maintain the upward pressure on prices," said Mr Wells, whose organisation represents manufacturers.

Coles spokesman Jim Cooper said international factors were flowing through to supermarket shelves. He said products with a grain component, such as bread and cereal, continued to come under pressure as strong global demand and historically low grain reserves pushed up grain prices. "The advice we're receiving from our suppliers is that this is going to continue for some time yet," he said.

Regardless of price movements at the checkout, farmers say their production costs have gone up dramatically faster than food prices.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics research shows that for broadacre Victorian farms the cost of fodder jumped 77.8% between 2001-02 and 2005-06 (in 05-06 dollars), while water (up 71.6%) and chemical costs (up 49.6%) also soared.

Anne Mansell, chairwoman of Sunraysia Citrus Growers, said that in real terms the price received by orange growers and the price paid by consumers for oranges had not changed much in recent years.

"Over those five years there has not been much movement in the price, and it comes back to the fact, the situation is, we are price-takers, not price-makers. We can't send a letter to our customers saying that because our costs have gone up by 30% we have to put up our prices by 30%," she said.

But Mrs Mansell said citrus growers received such letters from some of their suppliers probably every three months, warning that cost pressures had pushed up their charges to the growers.

Consumer Action spokesman Gerard Brody said laws forcing supermarkets to introduce unit pricing were needed to help combat rising prices. Unit pricing — where the price of a product per kilogram or litre is displayed alongside the checkout price — is compulsory in Europe.


Coles spokesman Jim Cooper said international factors were flowing through to supermarket shelves. He said products with a grain component, such as bread and cereal, continued to come under pressure as strong global demand and historically low grain reserves pushed up grain prices. "The advice we're receiving from our suppliers is that this is going to continue for some time yet," he said.

Regardless of price movements at the checkout, farmers say their production costs have gone up dramatically faster than food prices.

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics research shows that for broadacre Victorian farms the cost of fodder jumped 77.8% between 2001-02 and 2005-06 (in 05-06 dollars), while water (up 71.6%) and chemical costs (up 49.6%) also soared.

Anne Mansell, chairwoman of Sunraysia Citrus Growers, said that in real terms the price received by orange growers and the price paid by consumers for oranges had not changed much in recent years.

"Over those five years there has not been much movement in the price, and it comes back to the fact, the situation is, we are price-takers, not price-makers. We can't send a letter to our customers saying that because our costs have gone up by 30% we have to put up our prices by 30%," she said.

But Mrs Mansell said citrus growers received such letters from some of their suppliers probably every three months, warning that cost pressures had pushed up their charges to the growers.

Consumer Action spokesman Gerard Brody said laws forcing supermarkets to introduce unit pricing were needed to help combat rising prices. Unit pricing — where the price of a product per kilogram or litre is displayed alongside the checkout price — is compulsory in Europe.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Apr 14 2008, 09:03 PM
Quote:
 
I hate to tell you, but the hydrogen cycle IS the petroleum industry. Oil is a hydrocarbon, after all.
yes there is hydrogen in hydrocarbons.

Quote:
 
The government is not going to put their "feet down hard" on "big oil" because "big oil" is owned by the the same people who put them into office, all those millions of folks who are their shareholders. The thing about Utopian dreams is that they are just dreams.

If you mean having cars running off of hydrogen instead, that just isn't ever going to happen. I figured you'd know that hydrogen-tight connections are far more expensive than what is currently used. You aren't going to see a hydrogen station the way you would a gas (petrol) station. That's just not going to happen. Besides, even if you could do all this, because you need fossil fuels to create hydrogen economically. Indeed, the idea of having a high pressure tankful of an odorless and colorless flammable gas doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

that’s just an engineering problem , and it has been solved ….


Quote:
 
Lastly, who is going to pay to develop the infrastructure?
the same organizations who developed the petroleum based infrastructure , if they have any smarts.


Quote:
 
Sorry, but oil is the only substance with sufficient energy per cubic centimeter to fuel our infrastructure. No, we aren't going to be forced to give up our cars (you first, by the way) and given bicycles and forced to ride trolleys and trains. It didn't work for Red China, and it won't work for the rest of the civilized world.
not while most city dwellers choose to live in suburbs that are sometimes over an hour by car from where they work and urban public transport systems are hopeless , or as is often the case , virtually non-existent.

Quote:
 
EDIT: I almost forgot to add, most additional refinery production in this country would be done as add-ons to existing refinery production. The plans already exist. Turnaround is more like four years.
for small upgrades only.

No, the engineering problem has not been solved, in an economically feasible way, or this wouldn't be an issue.

As for infrastructure development, they'd be a lot smarter NOT to develop them. Why? Because corporations are owned by people, not some mindless governement that passes "thou shalt" edicts. There is little return on a hydrogen "infrastructure" because it would be far more complex than oil transportation. This would be different if hydrogen was a stable liquid at room temperature, but since it isn't, pigs can't be pigeons by adding wings.

So, you'd force suburbanites to live chock-a-block in cities, then? Illuminate me if I am wrong? Why not build a big rabbit warren and assign each family a cubicle.


Refinery upgrades... no, major upgrades. The hardest part has been getting the overzealous environmental impact statements completed. The designs have been in the works for years, and are being continually updated. One of my associates has a business that has had steadily expanding work for the past five years... updating refinery expansions to keep up with technology and meet changing specifications.

Have a nice day :wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Apr 14 2008, 06:50 PM
Posted Image
This is in one of the British newspapers today and it gives an idea of how prices have risen here.

Wow, there's a lot of fancy stuff in there...

Fusilli? Why not spaghetti? Butter as opposed to margarine? Who actually buys free range eggs? Is beef mince what we'd call ground beef? If so you had dirt cheap prices, even by Costco standards.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Spaghetti and fusilli cost the same here per pound. The shape doesn't affect the cost.

Don't forget those prices are in pounds, not dollars. To judge "dirt cheap" you have to look at incomes and buying power.

The point of the chart is the increase. I am pretty sure salaries did not go up an equivalent amount during that year so buying power is greatly affected.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Apr 16 2008, 11:31 AM
Spaghetti and fusilli cost the same here per pound. The shape doesn't affect the cost.

Don't forget those prices are in pounds, not dollars. To judge "dirt cheap" you have to look at incomes and buying power.

The point of the chart is the increase. I am pretty sure salaries did not go up an equivalent amount during that year so buying power is greatly affected.

Fusilli costs more at the supermarket here. It is branded as a paaaaaasta instead of just spaghetti being noodles.

I'm using two dollars per pound sterling as a rough estimate.

I think the chart is frontloading the data a bit, using certain lesser used products. Butter is a prime example. Now admittedly I have a US bias, but we buy butter once a year and that's for baking. Everything else gets healthy choice-type "margarine" product. Your average oleo costs a fraction of butter.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I dislike margarine and would only by butter. I don't understand your objection to its use in the chart simply because you chose not to buy it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dandandat
Apr 16 2008, 12:31 PM
I dislike margarine and would only by butter. I don't understand your objection to its use in the chart simply because you chose not to buy it.

My objection is that I think that most people do not buy that product regularly, so it is worthless as a variable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 16 2008, 01:33 PM
Dandandat
Apr 16 2008, 12:31 PM
I dislike margarine and would only by butter. I don't understand your objection to its use in the chart simply because you chose not to buy it.

My objection is that I think that most people do not buy that product regularly, so it is worthless as a variable.

I think you would have to prove such a statement. My perception is that people buy butter just as much, if not more regularly then margarine.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Geeze AB do you understand that these are EXAMPLES?

It doesn't matter if this represents YOUR weekly shopping list. It is meant to be typical for a Brit and the important point is the rise in overall cost - not what items were chosen for the list. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
Minuet
Apr 16 2008, 06:47 PM
Geeze AB do you understand that these are EXAMPLES?

It doesn't matter if this represents YOUR weekly shopping list. It is meant to be typical for a Brit and the important point is the rise in overall cost - not what items were chosen for the list. :rolleyes:

I know plenty of people here who buy butter rather than margerine so its inclusion is I suspect valid. Though I'd be loathe to estimate the ratio of butter/margerine users here.

Re. the source. Sorry I know I've said this before but this is the 'Daily Mail', whose journalists are well-known for their selectivity in picking data or stories which cause the most alarm. If you read that paper every day and believed it you'd shoot yourself, convinced that the end of the world was tomorrow.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus