Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

grocerygazette.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#991

Post by ambicapter »

jrockway wrote: post #603
samhuk wrote: post #167

As a person living in the UK, I have definitely noticed a considerable rise in unit prices. One of many examples is that a loaf of my favourite bread increased from £3 to £4 recently, which was a shocker. Toilet roll prices, as ever what the news loves to talk about, has exploded, increasing by around 70% since 2020 by my anecdotal observation. A sad thought I have about inflation is the fact that it is, wittingly or…

The winners from inflation are anyone with debt. If your mortgage was equivalent to 1000 loaves of bread yesterday, and it buys 500 loaves of bread today, you just got a bunch of free money. This assumes wages keep pace with inflation; at the very low end of the spectrum (minimum wage) they probably don't, but for professionals, it seems like everyone has gotten inflation raises over the last couple years. Other than…

> it seems like everyone has gotten inflation raises over the last couple years.

based on what?

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#992

Post by miroljub »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #94
miroljub wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit plus sanctions. War has nothing to do with that, at least not war in a classical sense. Economic or total war that some countries are involved in can be considered as a major reason.

Very high costs of energy have been caused by the war. Food production can be very energy intensive.

No, energy costs started raising before the war.

Once war started, the sanctions made sure they stayed high.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#993

Post by Shocka1 »

ulfw wrote: post #922
symlinkk wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s “extreme privilege” to not notice a price increase of maybe $3? I could see it if you’re living in extreme poverty but anyone middle class and above shouldn’t waste mental energy on things like that

When a coffee costs $7 instead of $4, even if I could "afford it" is something any normal human being notices. Rich or poor. Being able to afford such change is a different story. Do you not even look at your phone/credit card when you tap? Do you really just randomly pay things?

As an anecdote, I have a mentor/friend who made 500k+ from the 1990s to present day. He once told me in a nonchalant way, "there was a point in my life where I realized I could basically buy whatever I wanted." Hearing him say this was like a different language for me.

There were several years early in my childhood where macaroni and cheese was one of the main courses in family meals, because we didn't have much money. This was until my parents worked multiple jobs and promoted their way into respectable wealth - hearing my friend make that comment really stuck with me and I laugh whenever I'm reminded of it, like today.

Anyway, I agree with you totally. The OP comment doesn't seem like a normal thing for people to say and is rather tone deaf IMO. I could make ten times more than what I do now and would still notice yogurt being 80% more in our grocery. Luckily for me I don't have to budget when it comes to groceries, but I'm well aware of how much pain some people/families must be going through.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#994

Post by adamauckland »

antibasilisk wrote: post #370
dukeyukey wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in London for the past 6 years and I wouldn't say that at all. Food and energy has gone up (comparably to the rest of Europe), but there's a feeling that Sunak is more competent than the previous lot. Plus we're getting loads of tech investment.

I lived in London pretty much since I was born (2000), I moved away last year because of how bad it's gotten, and it has very little to do with food and energy. There is basically no sense of social cohesion left anymore, you cannot expect safety, you cannot leave a car parked outside and expect it not to be broken into. I've had a guy almost pull a knife on me because I accidentally came up behind him and he thought…

You were born in London and say "gotten"?

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#995

Post by algoatecorn »

hkt wrote: post #981
algoatecorn wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenhouses are a tiny sliver of overall food production. The rest of agriculture is heavily biased toward the energy density of fossil fuel, particularly nat gas and diesel. The innovation required to move away from the actual energy problem in agriculture is much greater than a bit of creativity

Moving away from these kinds of farming methods is really not as hard as people suppose. For a start, composting food waste would produce a carbon neutral source of fertiliser that would cover fairly large amounts of domestic need. Measures like these are really not hard. There's a glut of alternatives available, government simply does nothing to aid in the transition.

It's way more complicated than that.

For starters, a commercial scale composting operation needs inputs from various sources in order to achieve NPK balance - not just food waste. Therefore, the complexity increases by an order of magnitude as we have to orchestrate the logistics of food waste, manure, wood chips, and more.

Second is that compost is not even close to ammonia-based fertilizer in terms of elemental nitrogen, which is critical for our most calorie dense crops. Places like the Rodale Institue are not at all intellectually honest about organic production yields. Their systems fall apart at the global population level.

It is a fact that if we were to shift all-organic farming that we would need MORE land, and MORE people to create the same amount of food. That's the opposite of our current goal which is to create more food with less land and less people.

Third, the application of compost would actually increase soil compaction due to larger, heavier equipment required. It just so happens that these large equipment (tractors included) are not yet able to run on electricity. There are some electric tractors, yes, but nothing with the power equivalent to modern combines.

Fourth, is the bias toward energy density that I hinted at in the third point. But it isn't just tractors. Many farm operations are unable to electrify due to their proximity to the grid and the energy draw. I'm talking about grain storage and refinery, and many others.

These are all problems that could be solved with innovation. But to your point, it is probably HARDER than many people suppose. Definitely harder than you are making it out to be. Food systems are incredibly complicated. It is also incredibly optimized, and advocating for a massive shift comes with the intellectual responsibility of addressing this complexity and coming up with a solution that can compete with the status quo.

To your final point, the government is doing a lot to aid in the transition actually. Not sure where you are from, but the USDA is now offering more grant programs than ever before to address all of the above.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#996

Post by RhodesianHunter »

somenameforme wrote: post #699
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By giving money to people without producing more stuff - or even making it harder to produce the same - you MUST have inflation, rationing, or empty shelves - and often all three. Completely inaccurate. Giving people money that came from taxes does not increase the money supply. Giving people money that came from selling bonds does not increase the money supply. Only printing money increases the money supply.

The main driver in inflation is monetary velocity - the rate at which money is exchanging hands in the market. Increases in monetary supply almost invariably lead to increases in monetary velocity, so the two are generally equated - but this is not strictly necessary. If I gave you a quadrillion dollars tomorrow, and you chose to simply keep it under your [rather large] bed, but otherwise continued living as you do -…

>The main driver in inflation is monetary velocity

I would say this is also mostly innacurate. Velocity is one factor, but may or may not be the driving factor depending on circumstances.

If a global pandemic shuts down most of the manufacturing cities in China, and a war in Ukraine takes Russian energy and Ukrainian grain out of the supply equation, then the velocity of money is irrelevant compared to supply constraints.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#997

Post by RhodesianHunter »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #821
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By giving money to people without producing more stuff - or even making it harder to produce the same - you MUST have inflation, rationing, or empty shelves - and often all three. Completely inaccurate. Giving people money that came from taxes does not increase the money supply. Giving people money that came from selling bonds does not increase the money supply. Only printing money increases the money supply.

Printing Money == Borrowing Money in our modern banking systems. And borrowing is often exactly how this gets funded. Also, it's not just about the money supply. It's about who has the money and what they do with it. Taking money from a rich person who might have had it tied up in stock, and giving it to a poor person who takes it to the grocery store - will not put anything more on the shelves in that grocery store.…

>Printing Money == Borrowing Money in our modern banking systems.

Not exactly. Printing simply introduces new money supply. Borrowing (or selling bonds in our case) comes with a corresponding liability that decreases the supply over time in an aggregate amount greater than the original amount, and results in a corresponding difference in behavior from the borrower.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#998

Post by RhodesianHunter »

ars wrote: post #866
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By giving money to people without producing more stuff - or even making it harder to produce the same - you MUST have inflation, rationing, or empty shelves - and often all three. Completely inaccurate. Giving people money that came from taxes does not increase the money supply. Giving people money that came from selling bonds does not increase the money supply. Only printing money increases the money supply.

Actually money from selling bonds does increase the money supply. The government hands out that money, and people use it to buy more bonds, then the government hands out more money, and repeat. There is now more money in the world. Yes, if you unwind everything it will go back down, but that's never actually done.

> Actually money from selling bonds does increase the money supply.

With a corresponding liability that will eventually remove more money from the system than was introduced. This is of course a dramatically different equation.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#999

Post by mateo1 »

illiac786 wrote: post #956
mateo1 wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be funny if it wasn't horrifying. We're all shooting ourselves on the foot while other countries can only dream of achieving the industrial, technological and economical progress we've made. Deindustrialization 30,40,50 years ago was a side effect. But destroying our own energy infrastructure, industry, and now even agricultural sector? This is totally mad, and despite turning a blind eye this will come back…

Which one is "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Pumping more nitrogen fertilizer in the environment or cutting it? I think it depends who is "we" and what's the timeline for shooting ourselves in the foot, short term or long term. In both cases it sucks. I have a preference for the better long term strategy, at least I don't have the impression or driving into a wall (or I feel like we trying to swerve/break). Some da…

Pumping nitrogen into the ground produces food. As for the long or short term question, we're amputating our foot because we predict that a minor cut will be infected. Knowing what you don't know is the key here. Right now no one can predict how the world will look like in 5 years. War, disease, new weapons, new disruptive technologies being developed. Whatever the temperature and sea level change will be, it'll be the least of my concerns for a good few decades.

Re: UK: Food inflation rises to 18.2% as it hits highest rate in over 45 years

#1000

Post by illiac786 »

mateo1 wrote: post #999
illiac786 wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one is "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Pumping more nitrogen fertilizer in the environment or cutting it? I think it depends who is "we" and what's the timeline for shooting ourselves in the foot, short term or long term. In both cases it sucks. I have a preference for the better long term strategy, at least I don't have the impression or driving into a wall (or I feel like we trying to swerve/break). Some da…

Pumping nitrogen into the ground produces food. As for the long or short term question, we're amputating our foot because we predict that a minor cut will be infected. Knowing what you don't know is the key here. Right now no one can predict how the world will look like in 5 years. War, disease, new weapons, new disruptive technologies being developed. Whatever the temperature and sea level change will be, it'll be t…

Are you saying “no one can predict what effect nitrogen will have on our environment long term”? Because there is a broad consensus on the impact I believe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_pollution#Nitroge...

Or are you saying “maybe there will be a cheap technology to clean up the environment in the future”? Which seems to be a very risky bet.

I’m not saying I have a simple solution, we do need crops, lots of them, there’s no question. But nitrogen pollution can’t be simply dismissed, we need to find a solution halfway: reduce nitrogen pollution but keep sufficient crop yields.

Post reply on HN