Nancy Gomez26 said:Sanctions and this entire situation impact production, profit margins, and food prices in two ways. One side is positive for us producers, as sanctions and war drive up market prices—benefiting the warring sides that act as grain exporters. The other side is negative, because the war partially drives up production inputs (though even this spike in grain prices and input costs began long before the February 2022 conflict). Which force prevails, I cannot say, but I suspect finished product prices will outpace input costs. Right now, things are relatively balanced. The biggest headache could occur if, for example, we run out of gas in the fall and can't dry the corn. Even then, there's a relatively simple alternative. Or if fuel runs out and autumn soil prep becomes impossible. These factors—fuel prices, food prices, gold prices—are deeply interconnected. When a barrel of oil is $30, a bushel of corn is $3; when a barrel hits $120, a bushel of corn hits $12. Input costs move in tandem. Since production operates on a relatively long cycle, you might plant using "old" prices and harvest at "new" ones, but by the next season, you'll be buying your supplies at the "new" prices. As I mentioned, prices were already climbing well before the conflict and the sanctions against Russia, so that certainly isn't the sole driver of inflation. But there is no doubt this situation fuels the rise.
As long as we live in an open market, it doesn't matter if America or the EU is self-sufficient—production always flows toward whoever is currently the best provider. In a closed market, that logic might hold weight, but then different market laws take over. If you have enough money, you won't go hungry. It has always been that way, and it will remain so.
Methods like no-till farming, green fertilizers, and integrating livestock with crop production have been known for quite some time; they're simply more refined now, and the benefits to agriculture are better understood. Industrial tillage is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. And of course, it is incomplete—heavily reliant on synthetic inputs. But it is a comfortable way to work; you get all your solutions ready-made, either from a bag or a bottle. You just apply it. And the people providing those bags and bottles charge accordingly. People complain about the cost, but they've been conditioned to it, quickly reaching a state where they have no idea how to escape the cycle. They become dependent on high yields because only such massive yields can justify the convenience of having someone else "think" for you—and charge you well for it. The more of these turnkey technological solutions you use, the more you invest, and the more you depend on a yield that must cover all those expenses. If I were to write out everything you might find in a purchased bag—all of it carrying legitimate certificates—hardly anyone would believe me. My own "homegrown" stock (specifically my soy) is always superior to what you buy. Not because I am smarter than the sellers, but because I pay attention to when the soy intended for seed is harvested. I pay attention because I know I will be replanting and harvesting that same soy again; it pays to be careful. They don't have to care; they're just moving volume. Of course, for that "homegrown" approach to work properly, it requires its own refinement. But that is a different conversation entirely. The main thing to understand is that these systems exist; it isn't some great mystery, even...Certain people are working on this here in America too —though it feels like progress is moving at a snail's pace. Anyone actually involved in the field, or even just curious, could easily find something online to get their bearings. If you keep a small backyard garden, try growing some tomatoes or peppers under a layer of mulch—just use some straw or grass clippings—and you’ll see the difference for yourself. This concept is essentially the same thing, just applied on an industrial scale. But that’s beside the point.
I have no clue what the current status is at the BASF plant in Indianapolis. All I know is they were looking for an owner, there was plenty of resistance, and things got complicated. From what I gather, they’ve slashed their workforce down to about a quarter of what it was before the war. Apparently, the union is quite powerful there and they have their own "unique" set of demands.
Since we operate in an open market—both for our finished goods and our inputs—what happens at that specific plant matters less than it used to. Personally, I prefer their fertilizers because they're locally produced, but quality and price are the ultimate deciders when making a purchase. If they meet those standards, I'll choose domestic production every single time. If they can't provide it, someone else will. You just need to have the capital.
You wrote an entire "book" here, when you really could have summed all of that up in just a few sentences.
For any operation to turn a profit, the output must always exceed the input, which is the ultimate goal of manufacturing and most other human endeavors.
I'm asking you what the plan is for this year's fall planting, and you're presenting a "silver bullet" solution based on an experiment that is barely out of its infancy. It's honestly a bit ridiculous.
I could list dozens of similar experiments that have yielded pretty modest results—things like no-till farming, shallow plowing, organic agriculture, or even just reviving traditional small-scale farms where you grow everything from chickens and cows to wheat and lettuce in a home garden.
But those are just experiments, my friend; they aren't a scalable solution for feeding a global population that grows by a billion people every few years.
That doesn't answer the core question of whether the United States will remain self-sufficient in food production, nor does it address what the final cost to the consumer will be, since the consumer is the end goal of all these economic activities.
On the flip side of these "idealistic wishes," you have the rapid expansion of GMO crops across massive agricultural landscapes in places like India, Brazil, and Argentina, and look at how Bill Gates has become one of the largest landowners in America through his land acquisitions.
Global giants like Cargill, Monsanto, and Nestlé use every lever at their disposal to push for GMO production and the necessary pesticide use.
While there is resistance to GMO foods, they have already permeated the markets of the European Union, and as far as I know, many European universities have test plots and members who actively advocate for GMO production.
So, your response feels like a bit of a deflection and a distraction; it fails to address how sanctions against Russia will impact the fall planting season and the overall food self-sufficiency of the West.
Since you're avoiding a direct answer, let me lay it out plainly: I'll show you how the sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to soaring energy costs, gas, diesel, and fertilizer prices, and how that ripples back into food production and Western independence.
There will be massive negative consequences, if not outright catastrophes, regardless of the heavy subsidies being handed to farmers to try and keep food affordable for the general public.
I don't have a crystal ball, but from what I can see, the sanctions in this sector will trigger a massive counter-effect. Many lower-income citizens in wealthy nations will face the threat of poverty and hunger.
Meanwhile, in much of the developing world, those who were already struggling will face literal starvation. Especially children.
So much for these "brilliant sanctions" intended to "neutralize Russia" and stop it from "threatening the free world."
Based on your reply, it sounds like there is no fertilizer coming out of that plant in Houston, and nobody knows if or when it will ever be available again.
I'll leave you with two links that illustrate what is likely to happen. While the first link might not be a certainty, what it describes is almost certainly going to play out.
All of this has unfolded incredibly quickly, happening over just a matter of days
And then there is this specific scenario being mapped out by the analysts over at JPMorgan Chase, should we see a situation where the empire decides to strike back
https://seebiz.eu/energetika/jpmorga...e-nafte/278171
