OK. Now you’re getting personal. But I make allowance for that mule kick on the head you got as a tot, so I’ll pocket the insult.
You have yet to list a reason. I explained to you very clearly that
1. No hold on a large percentage of the food supply can be permanent, unless you stop all food production. So so much for the cataclysmic world famine that you think that that would entail.
2. In 2000 and 2001, all the food production would have gone to waste on account of the pandemic shutdowns, destroying large industrial farming and ranching operations. In this context, the large buy-up of food by China would be a godsend. It probably kept agriculture in the US afloat.
But the proof is in the pudding. If I’m too “stupid” to understand the “reasons” you list, perhaps others are too, and you could explain them in plain English. But you could do better than that, and go into the trading archives that ADM and others keep and prove conclusively that 2000 and then 2001 were business as usual in the agricultural sectors, as show in the charts of pricing and volume, and market news ADM keeps, as recorded from the trading floors of the Chicago and New York exchanges. As for me, I’ll be happy to stand by Palki Sharma Upadhyay’s conclusions. She knows more than you about China, and the goings on in Asia altogether. And you are plainly ignorant of the basics of agricultural commerce. 50% of global grain is only 5% of the food supply indeed. Go soak your head in soybean futures. Not the oil, mind you.
Look you just debunked yourself AGAIN.
Really. We’re done. You can have the next post, I ain’t reading it. If you can keep posting explanations why you’re wrong and not realize you’re wrong you are worthless.
Goodbye
Good luck
Have a great life
“In 2000 and 2001, all the food production would have gone to waste on account of the pandemic shutdowns, destroying large industrial farming and ranching operations. In this context, the large buy-up of food by China would be a godsend. It probably kept agriculture in the US afloat.”
Correction. Much of the food production would have gone to waste, possibly in the neighborhood of 50% or more. Hard to quantify a conjecture. But of course not all.