don't act like it won't happen again

Because it will. Some are saying that Krugman's getting this one wrong, saying that there isn't a speculation bubble growing on particular agriculture commodities, and is hunting around for any non-economic excuse he can to pin the blame on.

Clouded Outlook: Yes, world food prices are higher because of speculation:

Wheat prices are up about 50 percent in six months. The supply decline during that period was 0.1 percent. However, the anticipated decline in supply for this year is over 5 percent. That sounds a lot like speculation. Buy now on the expectation of higher prices in the future.

Low interest rates facilitates speculation in wheat. Suppose a speculator can take out a loan at 1 percent, buy a few tonnes of wheat at $200, stash them away in a warehouse and sell them six months later at $325. Does that not sound like a familiar wheeze? Here is a clue; think houses, dot.com companies, and currency futures.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world pays more for their food. Moreover, there is a kicker. The greater the amount of inflation, the greater the incentive for commodity dealers to speculate. More speculation means more hoarding, which in turn, creates more inflation. There is only one thing that can stop this cycle - higher interest rates.

For a liberal like Mr. Krugman, this is a very uncomfortable chain of events. He argued vociferously for lower rates. He believed that looser monetary policy would reduce the interest burden on US borrowers and prevent a further deterioration in US economic activity.

However, those low rates are now facilitating a speculative binge that is seriously hurting the world's most economically vulnerable people.

The ultimate effect of the bail-out was that the greedy shitheads who got us into this mess ARE STILL THERE. And they are still looking for the easiest way to turn an investment profit that outdoes inflation and then some.  With tech-companies saturated (or the smaller companies bought up too quickly or incorporated into mutual funds that have almost no growth at all regardless of company performance), housing still a total no-show (truth being that if the banks actually dumped all the property they own on foreclosures (if they could figure out who actually owns the damned things), they'd depress the market so much that we'd be guaranteed double-dip and then some - it cost less for the banks to hold onto the derelict property and pay property taxes than they would actually lose by dumping the property - and that's a GOOD thing because depreciating the property values even more would just hurt state governments to the point of bankruptcy worse than California's seen already), and oil speculation also already saturated, there's simply nothing left.

So the economic geniuses INVENT a scarcity where one doesn't exist, ride it for a few years on a handful of negative-sounding (but ultimately meaningless) headlines, make a fortune, get alliances with redneck farmers to lobby congress not to intervene by illogically associating regulation of speculation with an attack on their subsidies (nevermind how much these farmers are tea-party supporters supposedly against government handouts in the first place - right hand, meet other right hand), and...

sigh

...I think we've seen this movie before.

Wake me when when the tulips bloom.

libertarian only works if there's money in it...

McDonnell's plan to privatize the liquor stores under licenses and get the state out of the business, which is ethically the right thing to do, was shot down by the VA legislature who let the bill just die without a debate or a vote.  Oddly, the *fear* of partisanship kicking, rather than any real partisanship, in actually helped kill the thing.

McDonnell is handed legislative defeat as Virginia assembly drops bill to privatize liquor stores:

Democrats, who narrowly control the Senate, refused to let McDonnell's measure be heard until it was debated in the GOP-led House. But House Republicans declined to let the bill be considered because it was expected to be killed: A Democrat had introduced the legislation against McDonnell's wishes.

Now, the idea that more stores ==> more consumption is absolutely ludicrous. Those who drink, will drink. That they only have to drive 2 miles to get a bottle of Jim Beam instead of 10, or that stores will be free to look at alternate distributors to provide differing products in the rare category (like, say more than the 15 brands of scotch you find on a VA shelf these days) is not in any way going to change their overall consumption.  It's not like it can (legally) increase underage liquor, since teenagers can't legally get the stuff in any case, nor will it increase drinking around the colleges, every one in VA already having a liquor store within reasonable walking/busing distance.

That the money doesn't quite add up (in the short term) is a valid excuse, but at least get talking about it.  Jerks...on both sides...