Jim Rogers calls a next bubble in food again

[lektrode]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

now boyz?
when you 2 are on yer game, its very good reading - must we go to tit/tat mode?
this has been a very enlightening thread, please dont go kicking the sand up on the beach...

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

A 2 minute disproof of "The Hammer's" thesis being wrong:

2010 BLS consumer expenditure survey data:

Item	All consumer Units	Less than $70,000	$70,000 to $79,999	$80,000 to $99,999	$100,000 and more	$100,000 to $119,999	$120,000 to $149,000	$150,000 and more
Number of consumer units (in thousands)	121,107	82,994	7,250	10,098	20,766	6,749	5,865	8,151
Average annual expenditures	$48,109	$33,269	$57,024	$62,966	$97,737	$74,797	$89,614	$123,064
Food	12.7	14.0	12.2	12.4	11.4	12.5	11.7	10.8
Food at home	7.5	8.9	6.8	7.2	6.0	6.9	6.3	5.4
Food away from home	5.2	5.1	5.5	5.2	5.4	5.6	5.4	5.4
Total spending food at home	$436,975,250	$245,740,337	$28,112,832	$45,779,808	$121,776,393	$34,831,542	$33,111,925	$54,167,112
Total spending food away from home	$302,969,506	$140,817,497	$22,738,320	$33,063,195	$109,598,753	$28,269,077	$28,381,650	$54,167,112
%overall spending on food at home		56.24%	6.43%	10.48%	27.87%	7.97%	7.58%	12.40%
%overall spending on food away from home		46.48%	7.51%	10.91%	36.17%	9.33%	9.37%	17.88%
%consumer units		68.53%	5.99%	8.34%	17.15%	5.57%	4.84%	6.73%

The bottom 68.53% of the population is spending 46.48% of all "food away from home", in contrast the top 6.73% is spending 17.88% of all "food away from home"

Let's compare this to say, 2003 - to which I've added the data from above

Item	All consumer Units	Bottom 60% 2003	Top 20% 2003	Bottom 68.5% 2010	Top 17.15% 2010
Number of consumer units (in thousands)	97,391	58,409	19,501
Average annual expenditures	$42,742	$27,147	$81,731
Food	12.49%	15.20%	11.06%
Food at home	7.32%	9.76%	5.51%
Food away from home	5.17%	5.44%	5.55%
Total spending food at home	$304,736,439	$154,706,166	$87,813,003
Total spending food away from home	$215,331,501	$86,270,093	$88,437,035
%overall spending on food at home		50.77%	28.82%	55.91%	27.94%
%overall spending on food away from home		40.06%	41.07%	45.88%	36.58%
%consumer units		59.97%	20.02%	68.53%	17.15%
Fraction %food away from home/%consumer units		2/3	2 2/39	2/3	2 2/15
Fraction 2003 vs. 2010		100.22%	104.01%

Bottom line:

The bottom 60% in 2003 are spending the EXACT same ratio of their spending on 'food away from home' as the bottom 68% in 2010

The top 17.15% in 2010 are spending 4% more than their relative percentage of the population than the top 20% in 2003

There is NO trend of poorer people eating out because it is cheaper to eat out.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

A 2 minute disproof of "The Hammer's" thesis being wrong:

2010 BLS consumer expenditure survey data:



The bottom 68.53% of the population is spending 46.48% of all "food away from home", in contrast the top 6.73% is spending 17.88% of all "food away from home"

Let's compare this to say, 2003 - to which I've added the data from above



Bottom line:

The bottom 60% in 2003 are spending the EXACT same ratio of their spending on 'food away from home' as the bottom 68% in 2010

The top 17.15% in 2010 are spending 4% more than their relative percentage of the population than the top 20% in 2003

There is NO trend of poorer people eating out because it is cheaper to eat out.

aaaaaannnnnnnd THERE YOU GO AGAIN.

NO one, and i repeat NO ONE said anything about poor people eating out more. But you...

You have some real reading comprehension issues. And you are back to spinnnnnnnning the facts to your viewpoint.

Go BACK and read my OP on this.

[Kadriana]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

now boyz?
when you 2 are on yer game, its very good reading - must we go to tit/tat mode?
this has been a very enlightening thread, please dont go kicking the sand up on the beach...

I agree. I must say baking supplies are going up a lot. Things like butter, flour, sugar have all doubled if not tripled in the last 5 years. My husband recieved some funny looks tonight when he checked out with 24 packages of butter until I popped in next to him. We can afford an increase in prices and can stock up when things are on sale. I don't know how people who barely get buy can afford grocery prices especially in the winter when produce is a lot higher.

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

aaaaaannnnnnnd THERE YOU GO AGAIN.

NO one, and i repeat NO ONE said anything about poor people eating out more. But you...

You have some real reading comprehension issues. And you are back to spinnnnnnnning the facts to your viewpoint.

Go BACK and read my OP on this.

And theeeere you go again.

Not only are people overall - i.e. 100% - spending LESS of their income on "food away from home" in 2010 vs 2003 (i.e. restaurants) with food in general spending up the tiniest fraction (food prices shooting up, NOT), the ratios between 2003 and 2010 spending are nearly identical in both the top 20% and the bottom 60% between the 2 comparison years.

The top 20% is spending in proportion noticeably more - especially if relative income levels are taken into account, while the bottom 60% are spending the same.

You are welcome to discover if there is some magical change in the 2nd top 20%, but clearly the facts do NOT support your thesis.

But then again, we've seen over and over again that only facts which support your world view are acceptable.

This is called confirmation bias.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

And theeeere you go again.

Not only are people overall - i.e. 100% - spending LESS of their income on "food away from home" in 2010 vs 2003 (i.e. restaurants) with food in general spending up the tiniest fraction (food prices shooting up, NOT), the ratios between 2003 and 2010 spending are nearly identical in both the top 20% and the bottom 60% between the 2 comparison years.

The top 20% is spending in proportion noticeably more - especially if relative income levels are taken into account, while the bottom 60% are spending the same.

You are welcome to discover if there is some magical change in the 2nd top 20%, but clearly the facts do NOT support your thesis.

But then again, we've seen over and over again that only facts which support your world view are acceptable.

This is called confirmation bias.

you are an unbelievable clown. seriously.

you yourself state "The top 20% is spending in proportion noticeably more - especially if relative income levels are taken into account, while the bottom 60% are spending the same." Psst... that adds up to 80% champ.

And then you tell me spending is not going up. SO, WhereTF is it going DOWN clownshoes? And given an economy that fell off a cliff, with a significant number of people NO LONGER ABLE to go eat out, I would say you are just making a mockery of your own arguement -- as usual.

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

you are an unbelievable clown. seriously.

you yourself state "The top 20% is spending in proportion noticeably more - especially if relative income levels are taken into account, while the bottom 60% are spending the same." Psst... that adds up to 80% champ.

And then you tell me spending is not going up. SO, WhereTF is it going DOWN clownshoes? And given an economy that fell off a cliff, with a significant number of people NO LONGER ABLE to go eat out, I would say you are just making a mockery of your own arguement -- as usual.

You really seem to have zero grasp of numbers.

Perhaps you might actually read what is written: overall spending on food is DOWN from 2003 to 2010.

In 2003, everyone spent 5.2% of their spending on food away from home.

In 2010, everyone spent 5.17% of their spending on food away from home.

Thus despite a 4% increase in relative spending by the top 20%, the overall spending is down, though roughly even. This shows there is clearly no increase in spending on food away from home anywhere except in the top 20%. The increase in top 20% spending must be accompanied by a decrease in spending by the bottom 80% if the overall spending number is down.

Which is exactly what I stated: the rich are spending more, everyone else clearly is not.

As I said, you are welcome to try and find some support for your "hammer" thesis in these numbers - I sure don't see any.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

eat this...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fit...?siteid=yhoof2

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Fitch Ratings on Friday estimated that the U.S. restaurant industry will grow its same-store sales by 2% to 3% next year but operators are apt to remain under pressure from rising input costs. Food and beverage costs will be up 5%, with much of the increase coming from higher prices for beef and chicken. That is likely to bring pain to smaller companies but Fitch said that "large chain restaurants are in a good position to fend off significant margin erosion through modest same-store sales growth, menu management, and heavy reliance on low-cost franchising." Still, the firm noted that "for global restaurant operators such as McDonald's /quotes/zigman/233369/quotes/nls/mcd MCD +1.17% and Yum Brands /quotes/zigman/303422/quotes/nls/yum YUM +1.06% , cost pressure is likely to be felt both through higher food costs and wage inflation in the rapidly growing Chinese market."

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

and you can chew on this one as well...

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...er-sales-surge

McDonald's November sales surge 7.4% worldwide, more than expected

Updated: Thursday, 08 Dec 2011, 6:23 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 08 Dec 2011, 10:52 AM ESTOAK BROOK, Ill. (Newscore) - McDonald's said Thursday that global sales for restaurants open at least one year rose 7.4 percent in November from a year ago, far above expectations.
Analysts were expecting a 4.9 percent rise in same-store sales, according to Dow Jones Newswires.
In the US, comparable sales rose 6.5 percent on higher breakfast demand, the seasonal Peppermint Mocha and a Chicken McNuggets promotion, the fast-food chain said.

*snip*

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Yum-Br...77642.html?x=0

Yum! Brands Announces Full-Year 2012 Expectations; Raises 2011 EPS Growth Forecast to at least 13%, Excluding Special Items; Will Host Investor Update Meeting Wednesday, December 7, 2011

*snip*

U.S. Division operating profit growth of 5%




*snip*

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Given that the prices for health care, gasoline, and pretty much everything else is going up, I still fail to see what is so exceptional about food.

If in fact cost of inputs is increasing for fast food restaurants, it logically means increasing prices, which means increasing sales.

Only if these increases are shown to be different than all the other increases, does it make sense that there is some unique factor at work.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Given that the prices for health care, gasoline, and pretty much everything else is going up, I still fail to see what is so exceptional about food.

If in fact cost of inputs is increasing for fast food restaurants, it logically means increasing prices, which means increasing sales.

Only if these increases are shown to be different than all the other increases, does it make sense that there is some unique factor at work.

odd, you seem to have changed your position.... hmmm...

well, glad to see you see it my way.

oh, and BTW, htis is part of my thesis for owning farmland.

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

odd, you seem to have changed your position.... hmmm...

well, glad to see you see it my way.

oh, and BTW, htis is part of my thesis for owning farmland.

If after all this time you still cannot understand my position - clearly you should consider trying harder on reading comprehension.

To reiterate:

Food prices are not going up due to any fundamental factor; they are going up because of a combination of denominator devaluation (dollar) and energy prices increasing.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

If after all this time you still cannot understand my position - clearly you should consider trying harder on reading comprehension.

To reiterate:

Food prices are not going up due to any fundamental factor; they are going up because of a combination of denominator devaluation (dollar) and energy prices increasing.

your position was it was all about credit, that te world does not need more food and prices will not go up, and that cellulose would make a tasty meal.

this is fun. i am gonna keep this thread going forever just to point out the intellectual dishonesty of your arguements...

[c1ue]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

your position was it was all about credit, that te world does not need more food and prices will not go up, and that cellulose would make a tasty meal.

this is fun. i am gonna keep this thread going forever just to point out the intellectual dishonesty of your arguements...

Credit was about ag land prices.

It seems silly to try and NOT be factual when the facts are 2 clicks away.

But then it seems quite clear that facts never get in the way of your beliefs.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food

Credit was about ag land prices.

It seems silly to try and NOT be factual when the facts are 2 clicks away.

But then it seems quite clear that facts never get in the way of your beliefs.

HA HA! Anyone who follows this thread can see you have danced all over the head of a pin looking for various and different ways to support your bias against agriculture.

whatever. I had you pegged right from the beginning and I stand with it -- you are one of those guys who can never be "wrong" about anything, and will go to the ends of the earth to prove it from whatever way you want with whatever spurious arguement you can find.

It is all on display in this one thread for posterity. GOOD JOB my man!