This sounds like inflation. Didn't the economics say there wouldn't be any/much as a result of printing so much money?
General inflation would, by definition, extend beyond food prices.
Of course, it is, by definition, inflation in that specific sector.
> Didn't the economics say there wouldn't be any/much as a result of printing so much money?
And there isn't much sign of general inflation, which is what you'd expect if the key driver were money supply.
It's too early for much of the newly printed money to have spread out into the economy. We won't know how much inflation printing the money caused for some years, since it will take a while for the rest of the economy to adjust to the new money supply.
No, it's not, though if it was that would be another argument against the claim that food prices were an effect of monetart-policy-driven inflation.
> We won't know how much inflation printing the money caused for some years
If monetary policy had that much lag there'd be little point to it at all.
Why not? Money doesn't instantly magically transport itself to all parts of the economy. First the people who get the printed money have to spend it--and many of them haven't even gotten it yet. Then the ripple effects of the spending have to propagate through the rest of the economy. That can take a while.
> if it was that would be another argument against the claim that food prices were an effect of monetart-policy-driven inflation
At this point in time I would agree; there hasn't been enough time for people to have spent enough of the printed money on food.
However, since a fair chunk of the printed money is going to people who need it for basic living expenses, I would expect a fair chunk of it to be spent on food over the next few months, which will probably drive food prices up further--or will offset at least some of the price decreases to be expected as supply chains adjust.
> If monetary policy had that much lag there'd be little point to it at all.
This would come as a great surprise to the Federal Reserve board members and all of the economists who are always pointing out that the Fed has to base policy on estimates of what things will be like some time in the future, since monetary policy has a time lag. Try Google searching on "federal reserve monetary policy time lag" and see what hits come up.
Funny that when I did that I found pieces saying exactly what I already knew: that monetary policy changes tend to measurable effects quickly but still take a significant time to reach their peak effect (6-8 quarters), which is what the “policy lag” refers to, and then have reduced effect past that point.
Policy lag doesn't mean that it takes a long time for monetary policy to start having noticeable impacts, which is what was suggested.
Measureable effects on interest rates quickly. The reason for that is simple: the interest rates that are measured are usually tied directly to the Fed's rates (usually with an offset that depends on the particular kind of loan) and thus move with them.
But we're not talking about interest rates here. We're talking about prices of commodities like food, which are part of the things that "lag".
> it takes a long time for monetary policy to start having noticeable impacts, which is what was suggested.
What was suggested is that it takes time for monetary policy to start having noticeable impacts on food prices (and more generally prices of commodities).