What will be the catalyst for the global die-off?

[Lord Beria3]

Been thinking about this happy topic recently, and skyrcoketing food costs driven by severe water/energy crisis (and QE-fuelled global inflation) will be the catlyst for tipping hundreds of millions into starvation mode.

Countries will ban exports of food, leading to retaliation, trade wars, protectionism and eventual war.

Just as the 30s, and like what we saw in summer 2008, when riots exploded around the world due to high food costs, the collapse of world trade, social and political unrest on a epic scale and a retreat to trade/miltary blocs as the remaining global powers desperately attempt to cling on, and seize the pickings of weaker soverigns who have already gone down.

[Ludwig]

Yes Beria, the scenario you paint sounds quite likely to me. There can't possibly be a crisis on this scale without war rearing its head. (Well, it already has, only not anywhere near us - yet.)

[Andy Hunt]

There can't possibly be a crisis on this scale without war rearing its head. (Well, it already has, only not anywhere near us - yet.)

How does this square with the proposed running down of the military, I wonder?

[Lord Beria3]

I think the dollar is key - oil is traded through dollars - thus the price of food is indirectly dependent on the dollar.

A breakdown of the dollar is expected in the next 2-5 years, as soaring deficits and interest burden destroyes investors confidence in the greenback. A implosion of the value of the dollar, massive monetisation would fuel a

1) shift to tangible assets, particuarly gold but also land and core commodities like oil

2) a massive rise in the value of oil.

Throw in depletion, than I would the die-off to begin after 2014/15. The breakdown of world trade will devastate some countries that are highly geared towards imports of food (like the UK) and very likely these trade wars would disrupt the entire nexus of globalised finance and industry.

I think the die-off will first be in the fringes of the global south, hitting the poorest in the rest of the world, feeding socio-political instability and a more systemic breakdown of the system over a period of years.

[2 As and a B]

War is the only way out of this mess.[/irony]

[the_lyniezian]

I think the dollar is key - oil is traded through dollars - thus the price of food is indirectly dependent on the dollar.

A breakdown of the dollar is expected in the next 2-5 years, as soaring deficits and interest burden destroyes investors confidence in the greenback. A implosion of the value of the dollar, massive monetisation would fuel a

1) shift to tangible assets, particuarly gold but also land and core commodities like oil

2) a massive rise in the value of oil.

There has been talk about moving to a "mixed bag" of otherwise stable currencies if the dollar breaks down. That and if it has not already discussed, then surely there will simply be a trading of oil through some other currency.

The question is as to what other currency, as surely the dollar is not going to go down on its own. Maybe if the Chinese start trading the yuan...

Throw in depletion,

Of what? I presume you are referring to oil supplies?

than I would the die-off to begin after 2014/15. The breakdown of world trade will devastate some countries that are highly geared towards imports of food (like the UK) and very likely these trade wars would disrupt the entire nexus of globalised finance and industry.

I would think we are only geared towards imports of food to the extent that a lot of things are produced overseas more cheaply, out of season etc. than otherwise. If of course our own food production is hit by scarcity of oil (or existing rising prices) then it may become a problem- recalling once upon a time there was actually massive over-procduction of food leading to the need for set-aside schemes, and the like.

It might actually be good for certain sectors (possibly fruit farming?) in the short term.

Also you speak of trade wars, but I suppose they wil be between the major trading blocs anyway. Not internally in the EU at any rate, unless we decide to pull out (I can se immigration being much to blame in the case of food shrotages, and that may affect migrant workers permitted to work anywhere in the EU).

I guess if the worst comes to the worst, we might have enough capacity to permit food production with a certain amount of rationing, unless oil gets so utterly scarce (in the further future, or in the cases say of further Middle Eastern conflict) that food prduction basically grinds to a halt or must revert to pre-mechanised methods of farming, which cannot support the present large population. We are not a country that is for example very dry and very much on a knife-edge as far as food production is concerned altogether.

I think the die-off will first be in the fringes of the global south, hitting the poorest in the rest of the world, feeding socio-political instability and a more systemic breakdown of the system over a period of years.

Might this not depend on a. to what extent they are dependent on mechanised farming or transport to food markets, b. the dependence on exports and c. the dependence on foreign aid?

Certainly places like Africa and other hot, dry areas of the world could uffer- especially with the dtrain on water shortages, and the lack both of available export markets and foreign aid (which is lower priority fo the aid-giving nations than is going to drive up poverty and possible starvation. (Lack of aid might be good for local markts, though.)

When any such instability hits oil-producing nations, positive feedback...

And sad that it may well affect the poorer nations first, and most.

Let us hope instability happens less in potential nuclear powers...

[ndon]

will there not come a point when the unemployed masses will end up working he land in exchange for food as the oil to work the machinery will not be available?

[UndercoverElephant]

will there not come a point when the unemployed masses will end up working he land in exchange for food as the oil to work the machinery will not be available?

I'd say probably yes.

The most efficient way to turn natural resources into food is permaculture, but it is economically no use because it costs a lot if humans cost more to employ than buying oil. Eventually, permaculture will become the most economically sensible thing to do. IMO.

[PS_RalphW]

I was watching a history of Russian art yesterday on the box.

A very famous painting, said to have been a favourite of the early communists, was of a large trade barge being dragged up river by a dozen human labourers, as a steam tug chugged past in the distance.

It was taken as a symbol of how Tsarist Russia refused to modernise, because surf labour was so cheap. It led to revolution.

The reverse will not be a smooth ride either.