This is a ripple effect (also known as network effects) at work, and is illuminating of the distortive and destructive effects of inflation.
Inflation throws an economy off kilter. Price equilibria are upset, and there is a period of instability until new equilibria are established. In the case of food production and importation for the UK, inflation is increasing producer costs faster than it is increasing consumer prices, which, if unabated, will create shortages and scarcity--supply and demand essentially seeking out new equilibria.
While I have no doubt there are those sufficiently corrupt and degenerate to view these disruptions as net positives, the proposition that such people have both the foresight and the influence to disrupt global supply chains and local inflation in just the right measures to produce these particular effects is an extraordinary claim for which there is no empirical evidence.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the proposition that market dynamics are at work. Food price inflation and energy price inflation are hardly new phenomena. Moreover, current food price inflation in the US at least is not the worst it has ever been, nor is energy price inflation. For that matter, both headline and core consumer price inflation, while high, are not the highest on record.
While rampant labor strikes--which the UK has experienced before--are undeniably an expression of labor unrest, it is not the anarchic violence that is typically referenced by the term "civil unrest". For that we would need to see riots on par with the George Floyd riots of 2020.
Moreover, while food price inflation does exceed consumer price inflation time and again, the duration of that imbalance is generally fairly short (on an historical time frame), and is largely balanced by intervals when food price inflation is less than consumer price inflation.
In the United States at least, the long-term trend for food price increases has been for them to increase at a somewhat slower pace than overall consumer prices.
All of these trends are incompatible with the presumption of an arbitrary cabal stealthily manipulating prices and the relative supplies of goods in order to precipitate a societal collapse.
Moreover, the "global elites agenda" hypothesis, while not impossible on its face, is at the very least implausible, and for one simple reason: Any power and influence held by global economic and political elites today is derived from the existing structure of integrated global economies, a structure which is breaking down if not collapsing outright even as we speak. For the elites to pursue a depopulation and civil unrest agenda would be akin to sawing off the tree limb while sitting on it.
History shows that global elites do not enlarge their power when there is a breakdown in the social order. The most notable example of this is the Black Death pandemic of 1346-1353, which depopulated Europe by a large measure. It also undermined the power and prestige both of the Church and the feudal nobility, as neither institution was able to protect ordinary Europeans from the invading scourge--and protection of the masses was foundational to the feudal system. With both institutions' impotence in the face of natural calamity laid bare for all to see, the result was a decline in their control over said masses. Serfs were in the position to extract concessions and improved economic circumstances from their feudal lords, and the position of the Church as the font of all societal wisdom was forever diminished. Coupled with Gutenburg's development of the movable type printing press a century later, the societal instability of the Black Death catalyzed the religious upheavals and schisms that culminated in the Protestant Reformation that fractured Christendom in the 16th century.
That fracture would be a driving force in the Thirty Years War during the early to mid 17th century, which culminated in the Peace of Westphalia, which among other things called for greater religious tolerance--being Protestant was no longer the same as being an heretic.
That fracture was also a factor in the English Civil War which occurred in the same time frame, leading to the overthrow of the English monarchy and ultimately Oliver Cromwell's accession as Lord Protector (and ruthlessly authoritarian ruler) of England. Even after the Restoration during the 1660s, the English monarchy was a much reduced institution, and the Parliament was a much enlarged one, so much so that when James II ran afoul of the Parliament, Parliament carried out what is called the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and simply deposed James II in favor of William of Orange and his wife James' daughter Mary.
Even in the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, civil unrest led not to the enlargement of the governing elites, which were the Shah and his inner circle, but to their overthrow and the accession of the Shi'a clerics as the new governing elites led by Ayatollah Khomeni, who imposed his ideology of Velayat-e Faqih ("guardianship of the Islamic jurist"), which subordinated secular government to the theocratic rule of Islamic clerics ("jurists"). Prior to this Iran under the Shaw was a relatively secular society, and the Shah pursued an agenda of social liberalization (while trying to govern as an autocrat, which is an inherently unstable combination).
Civil unrest and population disruptions have never favored those notional political and economic elites who presumptively are at the apex of society. Quite the contrary, the historical experience of the elites during such periods is they tend to be among the losers.
Is this not in sync with global elites’ agenda to hasten depopulation and catalyze civil unrest?
No.
This is a ripple effect (also known as network effects) at work, and is illuminating of the distortive and destructive effects of inflation.
Inflation throws an economy off kilter. Price equilibria are upset, and there is a period of instability until new equilibria are established. In the case of food production and importation for the UK, inflation is increasing producer costs faster than it is increasing consumer prices, which, if unabated, will create shortages and scarcity--supply and demand essentially seeking out new equilibria.
While I have no doubt there are those sufficiently corrupt and degenerate to view these disruptions as net positives, the proposition that such people have both the foresight and the influence to disrupt global supply chains and local inflation in just the right measures to produce these particular effects is an extraordinary claim for which there is no empirical evidence.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the proposition that market dynamics are at work. Food price inflation and energy price inflation are hardly new phenomena. Moreover, current food price inflation in the US at least is not the worst it has ever been, nor is energy price inflation. For that matter, both headline and core consumer price inflation, while high, are not the highest on record.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=XkPO
While rampant labor strikes--which the UK has experienced before--are undeniably an expression of labor unrest, it is not the anarchic violence that is typically referenced by the term "civil unrest". For that we would need to see riots on par with the George Floyd riots of 2020.
Moreover, while food price inflation does exceed consumer price inflation time and again, the duration of that imbalance is generally fairly short (on an historical time frame), and is largely balanced by intervals when food price inflation is less than consumer price inflation.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=XkPX
In the United States at least, the long-term trend for food price increases has been for them to increase at a somewhat slower pace than overall consumer prices.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=XkQa
All of these trends are incompatible with the presumption of an arbitrary cabal stealthily manipulating prices and the relative supplies of goods in order to precipitate a societal collapse.
Moreover, the "global elites agenda" hypothesis, while not impossible on its face, is at the very least implausible, and for one simple reason: Any power and influence held by global economic and political elites today is derived from the existing structure of integrated global economies, a structure which is breaking down if not collapsing outright even as we speak. For the elites to pursue a depopulation and civil unrest agenda would be akin to sawing off the tree limb while sitting on it.
History shows that global elites do not enlarge their power when there is a breakdown in the social order. The most notable example of this is the Black Death pandemic of 1346-1353, which depopulated Europe by a large measure. It also undermined the power and prestige both of the Church and the feudal nobility, as neither institution was able to protect ordinary Europeans from the invading scourge--and protection of the masses was foundational to the feudal system. With both institutions' impotence in the face of natural calamity laid bare for all to see, the result was a decline in their control over said masses. Serfs were in the position to extract concessions and improved economic circumstances from their feudal lords, and the position of the Church as the font of all societal wisdom was forever diminished. Coupled with Gutenburg's development of the movable type printing press a century later, the societal instability of the Black Death catalyzed the religious upheavals and schisms that culminated in the Protestant Reformation that fractured Christendom in the 16th century.
That fracture would be a driving force in the Thirty Years War during the early to mid 17th century, which culminated in the Peace of Westphalia, which among other things called for greater religious tolerance--being Protestant was no longer the same as being an heretic.
That fracture was also a factor in the English Civil War which occurred in the same time frame, leading to the overthrow of the English monarchy and ultimately Oliver Cromwell's accession as Lord Protector (and ruthlessly authoritarian ruler) of England. Even after the Restoration during the 1660s, the English monarchy was a much reduced institution, and the Parliament was a much enlarged one, so much so that when James II ran afoul of the Parliament, Parliament carried out what is called the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and simply deposed James II in favor of William of Orange and his wife James' daughter Mary.
Even in the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, civil unrest led not to the enlargement of the governing elites, which were the Shah and his inner circle, but to their overthrow and the accession of the Shi'a clerics as the new governing elites led by Ayatollah Khomeni, who imposed his ideology of Velayat-e Faqih ("guardianship of the Islamic jurist"), which subordinated secular government to the theocratic rule of Islamic clerics ("jurists"). Prior to this Iran under the Shaw was a relatively secular society, and the Shah pursued an agenda of social liberalization (while trying to govern as an autocrat, which is an inherently unstable combination).
Civil unrest and population disruptions have never favored those notional political and economic elites who presumptively are at the apex of society. Quite the contrary, the historical experience of the elites during such periods is they tend to be among the losers.
Thanks for this! Took me awhile to get to it. Still digesting. Very in-depth rewarding material.