Ocean shipping rates have plunged 60% this year(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Ocean shipping rates have plunged 60% this year
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ocean-shipping-rates-have-plunged-60-this-year-11662375780
182 comments
Archive with full text of article: https://archive.ph/wlCqS
Transporting a 40-foot steel container of cargo by sea from Shanghai to Rotterdam now costs a record $10,522, a whopping 547% higher than the seasonal average over the last five years.” Between Asia and North America, Bloomberg reports that “contract rates…are coming in around $2,500 to $3,000 for a 40-foot container—25% to 50% higher than a year ago…” - from January
This seems like a non-story. Rates were insane due to Covid. Things are now normalizing. The rate is still incredibly expensive and should fall more.
This seems like a non-story. Rates were insane due to Covid. Things are now normalizing. The rate is still incredibly expensive and should fall more.
I see now how is it possible to have "Pears grown in Argentina, packed in Thailand".
Even at current prices it adds perhaps 20 cents to the cost of a single, 250g package.
Considering it was less than 4 cents previously it made economic sense to ship it for packaging in a country with cheaper labour.
Even at current prices it adds perhaps 20 cents to the cost of a single, 250g package.
Considering it was less than 4 cents previously it made economic sense to ship it for packaging in a country with cheaper labour.
I noticed... Limes grown in ... Peru or Uruguay, packed in ... Europe (might have been Italy, but maybe Poland)... then shipped to someplace in the US, then driven to me. This was on a bottle of lime juice. That is all of ... $1? Yet... I'd need to buy dozens of limes just to squeeze enough juice to get half that small bottle.
> That is all of ... $1?
That's all of $1 of realized cost. It's not accounting for negative externalities to the environment, depletion of non-renewable natural resources that future people may rely on, or poor living conditions/wage slavery/etc. Though some of that would certainly be offset by economies of scale so there's some number greater than $1 that would reflect the true "global cost" of doing that. It's just unknown and not measured.
That's all of $1 of realized cost. It's not accounting for negative externalities to the environment, depletion of non-renewable natural resources that future people may rely on, or poor living conditions/wage slavery/etc. Though some of that would certainly be offset by economies of scale so there's some number greater than $1 that would reflect the true "global cost" of doing that. It's just unknown and not measured.
Since no one is making anyone pay those, those aren’t ‘real’ costs. I could throw a couple more on there too, doesn’t change the economics any.
Most taxpayers in western countries will pay for those costs in the next decades.
Sounds like a problem for future taxpayers, not current economic actors (not advocating, just doing the math).
I think you're right here, but what tends to get lost from those who stop at "Sounds like a problem for future taxpayers" is that those taxpayers might be them if they're young enough, but will certainly be their children and grandchildren and the other citizens of their country (and the Earth itself).
That’s an awful lot of long term thinking based on projections of future impacts that may never come true. Hard to pay attention to if you’re worried if you’re going to be solvent next quarter.
Right, which is why (and I think this would just naturally arrive via a filtering mechanism) this is such an insidious problem. It's going to happen, and it is happening, but humans aren't very good (not incapable) at such long-term thinking especially on a planetary scale. I live in Ohio, freak ice storms and power problems in Texas might as well be in Pakistan where they had that recent flooding (note I'm just using these as examples and not attributing them specifically to climate change although they may be related). As long as the mall is still open and I have a job it's like.. what climate change?
And then when you add in both reasonable and unreasonable disagreement, you just get stuck... and if the problem is real and is going to cause big problems, well you're really betting the farm that you'll be able to come up with a planetary level solution in short order or else you're just hopelessly stuck with whatever happens to you.
As I look at the situation what I see are a few scenarios:
1. It's not bad and there won't be any long term effects. 2. It's pretty bad but the long term effects won't be that bad. 3. It's very bad and the long term effects will be quite bad. 4. (some combination including small/medium impact, etc.).
The thing is that it doesn't really cost much to address 1. and 2. and we get some nice benefits anyway like lower levels of pollution, maintenance of resources like fisheries or forests or whatever. But if it's 3. and we don't do anything we are mega fucked or we will need a very lucky and well-timed solution. Elon said something to the effect of "let's not find out if we get lucky or find a solution" and to that I wholeheartedly agree.
And then when you add in both reasonable and unreasonable disagreement, you just get stuck... and if the problem is real and is going to cause big problems, well you're really betting the farm that you'll be able to come up with a planetary level solution in short order or else you're just hopelessly stuck with whatever happens to you.
As I look at the situation what I see are a few scenarios:
1. It's not bad and there won't be any long term effects. 2. It's pretty bad but the long term effects won't be that bad. 3. It's very bad and the long term effects will be quite bad. 4. (some combination including small/medium impact, etc.).
The thing is that it doesn't really cost much to address 1. and 2. and we get some nice benefits anyway like lower levels of pollution, maintenance of resources like fisheries or forests or whatever. But if it's 3. and we don't do anything we are mega fucked or we will need a very lucky and well-timed solution. Elon said something to the effect of "let's not find out if we get lucky or find a solution" and to that I wholeheartedly agree.
The most likely scenario is one you’re not considering because you’re a pessimist: It’s very bad and the effects won’t be that bad because people will come up with solutions you can’t predict.
Like when we were supposed to run out of Europium, or the population was supposed to exceed the food supply, or any number of doomsday scenarios.
I’m not saying the climate/resource predictions aren’t true based on what we know, I’m saying they aren’t true based on what we don’t yet know.
It’s certainly possible you’re right, but you’re not giving any attention to the possibility that you’re wrong.
Like when we were supposed to run out of Europium, or the population was supposed to exceed the food supply, or any number of doomsday scenarios.
I’m not saying the climate/resource predictions aren’t true based on what we know, I’m saying they aren’t true based on what we don’t yet know.
It’s certainly possible you’re right, but you’re not giving any attention to the possibility that you’re wrong.
Eh I’m not really a pessimist so let’s go ahead and dismiss that.
What you’re saying here is that the most likely scenario is that we’ll have global climate change but the effects won’t be that bad because we’ll invent technology to address those effects.
Sure that’s certainly possible.
What I don’t understand is the desire to roll the dice that we will invent technology to mitigate the effects of climate change versus just not having climate change and thus not leaving to chance that we will create technology to mitigate these effects?
Certainly I think you’re overestimating that this is a pure technology problem to be solved versus a political and cultural problem of which technology is but just another actor on the stage.
You’re also discounting short and intermediate term instability which will lead to increased human suffering while we attempt to resolve political and cultural problems and invent new technology. How many future wars may be fought over resources because we said “eh someone will figure it out”? It’s a quasi-religious faith in technology as universal problem solver.
Alternatively we could just start working on the problem now and not explore a path that bets civilization for no real gain.
What you’re saying here is that the most likely scenario is that we’ll have global climate change but the effects won’t be that bad because we’ll invent technology to address those effects.
Sure that’s certainly possible.
What I don’t understand is the desire to roll the dice that we will invent technology to mitigate the effects of climate change versus just not having climate change and thus not leaving to chance that we will create technology to mitigate these effects?
Certainly I think you’re overestimating that this is a pure technology problem to be solved versus a political and cultural problem of which technology is but just another actor on the stage.
You’re also discounting short and intermediate term instability which will lead to increased human suffering while we attempt to resolve political and cultural problems and invent new technology. How many future wars may be fought over resources because we said “eh someone will figure it out”? It’s a quasi-religious faith in technology as universal problem solver.
Alternatively we could just start working on the problem now and not explore a path that bets civilization for no real gain.
That's like saying if I go and paint my house in leopard stripe paint that since my mortgage isn't going up the only cost to my net worth was the cost of the paint + labor.
If it doesn’t stop you from doing it and no one involved (including you) ever does any analysis resulting in a change in behavior - you’re basically correct, economically.
And humans are back to waving off reality in deference to ephemera.
Of course some of those externalities are factored in. This happens via regulation. Here's one recent example: https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry...
Or do you mean all negative externalities? To me, that seems akin to the coastline paradox.
Or do you mean all negative externalities? To me, that seems akin to the coastline paradox.
The coastline paradox comes from the fact that the length of the coastline is literally undefinable; there's always a closer level of granularity you could use to get a longer coast.
For externalities, it seems like there fundamentally is a correct cost -- doing all the accounting might be a real pain though.
For externalities, it seems like there fundamentally is a correct cost -- doing all the accounting might be a real pain though.
The coastline paradox is actually a great example.
You can never price in all externalities, but you sure as hell can improve your pricing of externalities from what it is (in the same way a 1km resolution of coastline is better than a 100,000km resolution)
You can never price in all externalities, but you sure as hell can improve your pricing of externalities from what it is (in the same way a 1km resolution of coastline is better than a 100,000km resolution)
He means the biggest ones.
We're only accounting for a very small percentage of externalities.
Let's not build up strawmen.
We're only accounting for a very small percentage of externalities.
Let's not build up strawmen.
And yet the vast majority of pollution will be created by somebody using their car to drive to the store and back when buying goods. This is even true for fruit that’s flown in.
Your statement is very interesting and thought provoking.
I'd like to know if it's true. It sounds like one of those things that are "to good to be true".
Is it possible that you're conflating the total of transportation pollution per capita with the part of it that has to do with driving to the grocery store for that?
I'd like to know if it's true. It sounds like one of those things that are "to good to be true".
Is it possible that you're conflating the total of transportation pollution per capita with the part of it that has to do with driving to the grocery store for that?
Just napkin mathing it, it doesn't seem like it would be surprising in the least due to mass transport.
Take the cargo ship for instance. In looking up the numbers, a single large cargo ship can carry upwards of 20,000 20-foot long cargo containers each with a volume of ~1200 cubic feet. So that's 24 million cubic feet of storage. Break that down into pollution per item, it's going to be some value that's effectively zero.
And the same is going to be true for most other transportation and movement along the overall pipeline, which is all going to be done at a large scale to reduce costs. And then you enter the picture. You drive 15 miles there, and 15 miles back in your vehicle - to pick up 6 limes, a few sprigs of mint, and a bottle of rum. The cost of transport/mile/unit there is easily going to be orders of magnitude greater than any other part of the trip, and it's not hard to imagine it exceeds the entire cost of the rest combined.
Take the cargo ship for instance. In looking up the numbers, a single large cargo ship can carry upwards of 20,000 20-foot long cargo containers each with a volume of ~1200 cubic feet. So that's 24 million cubic feet of storage. Break that down into pollution per item, it's going to be some value that's effectively zero.
And the same is going to be true for most other transportation and movement along the overall pipeline, which is all going to be done at a large scale to reduce costs. And then you enter the picture. You drive 15 miles there, and 15 miles back in your vehicle - to pick up 6 limes, a few sprigs of mint, and a bottle of rum. The cost of transport/mile/unit there is easily going to be orders of magnitude greater than any other part of the trip, and it's not hard to imagine it exceeds the entire cost of the rest combined.
15 miles to a store? What kind of people drive that far to pick up so few items? Perhaps doing the big shopping you can go that far, but I definitely buy more stuff than 6 limes when I drive that far.
Also, I wasn't comparing the cost of shipping lime from south america to europe, but I was comparing it with the cost of shipping limie from south america to vietnam to do the packaging and then back to europe to do the consuming which is more than double the pollution. You need to unload the ships, move the trucks to the places where people do the packaging, move the goods back into a ship, unload the stuff again, drive it all the way to other warehouses etc etc
Also, I wasn't comparing the cost of shipping lime from south america to europe, but I was comparing it with the cost of shipping limie from south america to vietnam to do the packaging and then back to europe to do the consuming which is more than double the pollution. You need to unload the ships, move the trucks to the places where people do the packaging, move the goods back into a ship, unload the stuff again, drive it all the way to other warehouses etc etc
> 15 miles to a store? What kind of people drive that far to pick up so few items? Perhaps doing the big shopping you can go that far, but I definitely buy more stuff than 6 limes when I drive that far.
When you think about it, most populated areas in the US are rural, sparsely populated areas. It may be 20 miles to the nearest store, and that store may only be a 7-11. I feel lucky to have found a nice spot in a rural area that is only 8 miles to the Walmart, and that really hurt recently with gas prices, still does.
When you think about it, most populated areas in the US are rural, sparsely populated areas. It may be 20 miles to the nearest store, and that store may only be a 7-11. I feel lucky to have found a nice spot in a rural area that is only 8 miles to the Walmart, and that really hurt recently with gas prices, still does.
> most populated areas in the US are rural
But most population, isn't in rural areas. I've got a local specialty grocery store literally downstairs next to my condo, and a full grocery store three blocks away. "The average household traveled 3.79 miles to their primary grocery, even though the closest store was 2.14 miles way." (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/04/10/5-things-the-usda-lea...)
But most population, isn't in rural areas. I've got a local specialty grocery store literally downstairs next to my condo, and a full grocery store three blocks away. "The average household traveled 3.79 miles to their primary grocery, even though the closest store was 2.14 miles way." (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/04/10/5-things-the-usda-lea...)
I think their point is not that there are people that far away from a store but that those folks generally make larger bulk purchases when they make the trip to and from the store.
People don't realize that bulk purchases require up front capital. Some people can't afford to buy more that what they need at the time, even if it'll cost more in the long run. This even includes things like the 24 or 36 pack of toilet paper
OK but if you are driving 20 miles to buy one roll of toilet paper it probably makes about as much sense to wipe with singles.
The closest grocery store to my house is an upscale store about 10 miles away. Next closest is the much cheaper Walmart which is about 12 miles away in a different direction.
I often have to make a 20 mile round trip just to get a gallon of milk.
I often have to make a 20 mile round trip just to get a gallon of milk.
A good rule of thumb is. If it's cheap, it didn't burn too much energy! A trip to the store is purely C02 expense of almost a dollar. A dollars worth of lime, probably has C02 expense in the range of almost 10 cents.
This is simply not true. Consumer transportation accounts for a tiny fraction of global energy use. This is a common tactic for blame shifting to excuse the complete lack of effort and egregious waste from the corporate and industrial sectors. Shame on you for blindly picking it up and retransmitting it.
You seem to be changing focus. Op is pointing out that 10k fruit transported has a very low amortized cost per piece, whereas driving to the store has a low number of goods to amortize over.
This was pointed out on a freakanomics episode.
Furthermore last I checked the academic analysis I could find found that Amazon prime delivery has smaller footprint than driving to the store unless you’re getting like 14 items at once for similar reasons.
This was pointed out on a freakanomics episode.
Furthermore last I checked the academic analysis I could find found that Amazon prime delivery has smaller footprint than driving to the store unless you’re getting like 14 items at once for similar reasons.
It also completely discounts the policy decisions that lead to the car being driven. The driver didn't choose to defund public transportation and build widely spaced infrastructure that largely requires car travel.
Shame on you for ignoring the industrial feedback loop that is required to make consumer vehicles.
The building and refueling of gas stations.
Shipping replacement parts.
The trip to the store is not their only impact.
You’re cherry picking a stat that represents the smallest part you want to take responsibility for but demand for all of it as resource costs.
The building and refueling of gas stations.
Shipping replacement parts.
The trip to the store is not their only impact.
You’re cherry picking a stat that represents the smallest part you want to take responsibility for but demand for all of it as resource costs.
>I'd need to buy dozens of limes just to squeeze enough juice to get half that small bottle.
i know this is completly off-topic, but commercial lime juice is made by mulching whole limes finer and finer until they essentially liquefy, not squeezing the juice, so they get much higher yields.
i know this is completly off-topic, but commercial lime juice is made by mulching whole limes finer and finer until they essentially liquefy, not squeezing the juice, so they get much higher yields.
wow... didn't know that. thanks!
> I'd need to buy dozens of limes
Or to add industrial citric acid and water to a 2% of lime juice so you can sell it by 1$.
Or to add industrial citric acid and water to a 2% of lime juice so you can sell it by 1$.
> adds perhaps 20 cents to the cost of a single, 250g package.
Can you share your math?
Can you share your math?
I assumed that weight is the limiting factor, considering the content is slightly denser than water, and an ISO40 container holds 26 740 kg:
https://freightfinders.com/container-transport/40-feet-iso-c...
Assuming two trips the lengths of which are in the same order of magnitude as the one mentioned: $10 522 * 2 = $21 044.
That's $0.7869 per kg, so $0.1967 per 250g package. At $2k per container it's $0.0373.
https://freightfinders.com/container-transport/40-feet-iso-c...
Assuming two trips the lengths of which are in the same order of magnitude as the one mentioned: $10 522 * 2 = $21 044.
That's $0.7869 per kg, so $0.1967 per 250g package. At $2k per container it's $0.0373.
Not OP, but it's pretty obvious. At $1-$2 (US) per cubic foot, 4-8 packages per cu. ft. is 20¢ apiece. A shipping container is about 2400 cu. ft., more for hi-cubes.
You also have hard limits on the total weight of the container, which is why no one transports iron ore in containers.
Pretty common to ship 20mt of metal in containers-we process $8B in raw commodities a year like this. Commodity traders don’t pay these prices to ship though, these are high value manufacturing (cpg, tech) prices. Commodity firms still ship enough volume to pay sub $2k a can.
> ship 20mt of metal in containers
containers vary a lot in their construction and materials, right? open-top railway car containers are not the same as common trans-continental containers, and refrigerated units are different again. All of those and more are in daily use in vast numbers, worldwide.
containers vary a lot in their construction and materials, right? open-top railway car containers are not the same as common trans-continental containers, and refrigerated units are different again. All of those and more are in daily use in vast numbers, worldwide.
20,000 kg of steel is ~3m^3. That leaves rather a lot of the 30m^3 volume of a 20 foot container empty.
I believe that the trucking portion of handling the container has weight limits; the machinery that handles the loading and unloading have their weight limits; the ship and the way it is loaded from bow to stern has weight limits, and a container itself has weight limits. Somewhat analogous to freeway overpass heights, the tendency over time is that the various limits harmonize with each other and you get typical shipping practices.
A shipping container full of raw cotton is indeed quite different than one full of "iron ore" but actually, consumer electronics and various car parts, their load limits, are more commonly restricted in the way they are loaded and handled.
A shipping container full of raw cotton is indeed quite different than one full of "iron ore" but actually, consumer electronics and various car parts, their load limits, are more commonly restricted in the way they are loaded and handled.
[deleted]
It's only that cheap because they're using our atmosphere as a free open sewer
In terms of carbon let's calculate that. Rotterdam to Shanghai is about 9000 km. The package is 250 g. Container ship transport is about 15 grams of carbon per kilometer per metric ton. So a total emission of 2.25 grams of carbon for the trip.
It costs about $600 to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere the hard way, rather than messing about with tree credits and other stuff that's too easy to game. So we'd want to add another $.001 to the price to account for the cost of the carbon involved in transporting it. Bulk container ships are very energy efficient compared to other sorts of transportation.
However, they do use bunker fuel and the above doesn't take account of all the sulfur and particulates that gets emitted.
It costs about $600 to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere the hard way, rather than messing about with tree credits and other stuff that's too easy to game. So we'd want to add another $.001 to the price to account for the cost of the carbon involved in transporting it. Bulk container ships are very energy efficient compared to other sorts of transportation.
However, they do use bunker fuel and the above doesn't take account of all the sulfur and particulates that gets emitted.
> It costs about $600 to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere the hard way
I think I found the source you used to get that number[0] (or [1]) it says:
> Atmospheric carbon removal can be as simple (and relatively inexpensive) as planting trees. But to remove sufficient carbon to meet the target, new technologies will be needed. Some are currently being piloted, including potentially expensive and/or environmentally-invasive technologies. Costs are estimated to range up to $600 per tonne of sequestered CO2, although no one really knows for sure.
So I don't think we should be using hypothetical future tech (with a big question mark to boot) to put a dollar value on pollution emitted transporting goods today, particularly when it focuses on carbon and doesn't account for the other emissions.
[0] - https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-10-06-carbon-removal-will-cos...
[1] - could actually have been this one, which starts by describing it as $600/ton and later clarifies that this is using experimental tech: https://www.science.org/content/article/cost-plunges-capturi...
I think I found the source you used to get that number[0] (or [1]) it says:
> Atmospheric carbon removal can be as simple (and relatively inexpensive) as planting trees. But to remove sufficient carbon to meet the target, new technologies will be needed. Some are currently being piloted, including potentially expensive and/or environmentally-invasive technologies. Costs are estimated to range up to $600 per tonne of sequestered CO2, although no one really knows for sure.
So I don't think we should be using hypothetical future tech (with a big question mark to boot) to put a dollar value on pollution emitted transporting goods today, particularly when it focuses on carbon and doesn't account for the other emissions.
[0] - https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-10-06-carbon-removal-will-cos...
[1] - could actually have been this one, which starts by describing it as $600/ton and later clarifies that this is using experimental tech: https://www.science.org/content/article/cost-plunges-capturi...
Plus ocean pollution and other disruption, directly due to ships or infrastructure for them.
>This seems like a non-story. Rates were insane due to Covid. Things are now normalizing. The rate is still incredibly expensive and should fall more.
Things normalizing are important. Many things are still out of whack. Inflation is still 9%. Demand is decreasing. Why is that a "non-story"? It seems to me it's interesting in both directions.
Things normalizing are important. Many things are still out of whack. Inflation is still 9%. Demand is decreasing. Why is that a "non-story"? It seems to me it's interesting in both directions.
It is very interesting on the single dimension of shipping rates as well as the obvious implications for the supply chain, consumer demand, and what it means to the #1 economic number at the moment inflation.
> Rates were insane due to Covid
No they were insane due to the post covid boom, which also resulted in 9% inflation & write down the biggest number you can think of and we will pay it tech salaries.
> Rates were insane due to Covid
No they were insane due to the post covid boom, which also resulted in 9% inflation & write down the biggest number you can think of and we will pay it tech salaries.
Agree with your larger point, but prices actually were flat or slightly down in July vs June, which is deflation (they were up year over year, but that’s due to inflation in preceding months).
>This seems like a non-story. Rates were insane due to Covid. Things are now normalizing.
Keyword: normalizING. Those inflated prices are continuing to result in supply shortages around the world. I still cannot acquire certain plastic items because they are ridiculously high at the moment. These shortages are also contributing to inflation. There are a lot of people who are closely watching this situation to it's resolution
Keyword: normalizING. Those inflated prices are continuing to result in supply shortages around the world. I still cannot acquire certain plastic items because they are ridiculously high at the moment. These shortages are also contributing to inflation. There are a lot of people who are closely watching this situation to it's resolution
The inflated prices do not result in supply shortages. The increased/altered demand during covid, combined with decreased supply due things like zero covid china policy, caused a shortage in the market. Price, naturally, increased in this environment to find a strike point where demand would be satisfied with available supply.
> The inflated prices do not result in supply shortages
it's assumed that the shortage here meant supply at (the previously) low prices. Some people are making do without whatever that they originally intended, or found a substitution that was cheaper (and likely at a lower quality).
it's assumed that the shortage here meant supply at (the previously) low prices. Some people are making do without whatever that they originally intended, or found a substitution that was cheaper (and likely at a lower quality).
[deleted]
Talk about market realism. By that definition if everyone else died of starvation because there was one container food left and elon musk bought it there's no famine.
Do you honestly believe that the 2020 Covid supply chain issues were caused by prices?
That markets were 100% fine and one day someone was like, "nah fuckit, let's make shipping cost $30k instead of $3k, why not!" and bam, the supply issues started?
Because if not, then you probably agree with me that increased/changed demand due to WFH combined with supply shortages (caused by China and others locking down), caused supply shortages, which naturally caused price to increase.
> By that definition if everyone else died of starvation because there was one container food left and elon musk bought it there's no famine.
This isn't even tangentially related to what I said. Like.... my brother in Christ... what. How did you even make this up?
In your weird fake world where there is 1 food container, that's called a food shortage. A food shortage can lead to increased prices, which it would in your case. You're then saying that a rich person buys the one food. My sister in satan, there is still a shortage after Elon buys it. You see that, right? The shortage continues even though the limited supply was used. When people's food demand can't be met, it causes famine no matter where the strike price of food falls (if the food container cost just $0.01, but everyone was destitute, it would still be a famine!)
That markets were 100% fine and one day someone was like, "nah fuckit, let's make shipping cost $30k instead of $3k, why not!" and bam, the supply issues started?
Because if not, then you probably agree with me that increased/changed demand due to WFH combined with supply shortages (caused by China and others locking down), caused supply shortages, which naturally caused price to increase.
> By that definition if everyone else died of starvation because there was one container food left and elon musk bought it there's no famine.
This isn't even tangentially related to what I said. Like.... my brother in Christ... what. How did you even make this up?
In your weird fake world where there is 1 food container, that's called a food shortage. A food shortage can lead to increased prices, which it would in your case. You're then saying that a rich person buys the one food. My sister in satan, there is still a shortage after Elon buys it. You see that, right? The shortage continues even though the limited supply was used. When people's food demand can't be met, it causes famine no matter where the strike price of food falls (if the food container cost just $0.01, but everyone was destitute, it would still be a famine!)
I really hate articles like this. It's like they're only written for the shippers and their margin and no one else. The country as a whole suffered under those huge rates. Why is "falling" to normal prices a bad thing?
I don't think anyone (except maybe logistics companies) think this is a bad thing.
For almost all other readers of the WSJ shipping costs are just seen as a tax that makes their products more expensive.
For almost all other readers of the WSJ shipping costs are just seen as a tax that makes their products more expensive.
Environmentalists or local manufacturers might also think dropping prices are bad ?.
Local firms can compete better if cost of imports are higher .
Similarly less goods will be imported if costs are high , therefore less emissions.
Local firms can compete better if cost of imports are higher .
Similarly less goods will be imported if costs are high , therefore less emissions.
Shipping is around 2.5% of global emissions, and notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume[1] which is of course the thing that effects emissions.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-sea...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253987/international-sea...
Shipping also uses RFO [1][2] (Residual Fuel Oil, often just referred to as bunker fuel). It is the absolute filthiest petrosludge that's essentially unfit for any other purpose, and the exhaust waste is dumped into the ocean directly. That 2.5% is likely a gross underestimate of the true impact [3][4]. The "scrubber" systems which are supposed to reduce the sulfur dumped into the air, just wind up dumping it into the sea [5].
1: https://williamliggett.com/2018/05/28/bunker-fuel-sounds-bad-its-worse-than-it-sounds/
2: https://wolfstreet.com/2018/06/03/bunker-the-fuel-for-the-giant-engines-in-large-cargo-ships/
3: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/11399/2020/
4: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026974912101280X
5: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139/full2.5% would be far from insignificant. The European Commission Climate Action website put it closer to 2.9% and volumes are expected to increase by as much as 100% until 2050.
The percentage is even more significant if you look at it from the point of view of relatively clean part of the world like the EU. Shipping is 4% of our emission.
Something will definitely have to be done with shipping if countries want to hit their emission targets.
The percentage is even more significant if you look at it from the point of view of relatively clean part of the world like the EU. Shipping is 4% of our emission.
Something will definitely have to be done with shipping if countries want to hit their emission targets.
That’s a false argument. There’s no activity that of itself produces 50% of humanity’s emissions. Every single one is “not worth reducing” because the bulk is always somewhere else.
Nope. Every .1% reduction counts. That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it.
Nope. Every .1% reduction counts. That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it.
There are activities that produce significantly more than 2.5% emissions, like burning coal for electricity and heating (which is something like 20-25%, I guess).
Also, coal-fueled power plants have clear alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc). What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
Also, coal-fueled power plants have clear alternatives (nuclear, solar, etc). What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
The alternative is building and sourcing things locally. This might not be feasible in the case of key primary materials (can’t build cars if there’s no steel) but a lot of manufacturing was moved overseas simply because salaries there were lower (which is changing) and the environmental laws were weaker (which is also changing). It’s not inconceivable any more that local is preferable to outsourced, and it might even be cheaper in some cases.
We already tried that strategy... in Middle Ages. World has moved on to globalized trade for a reason.
See North Korea for a contemporary example of a country that produces everything internally.
The amount of global trade in the middle ages was enormous, literally from Europe to china with the middle east in between. If anything the laissez faire spirit of global trade was more alive in the middle ages.
Global trade has exploded since we adopted the shipping container and it's been just the latest thing in a long list of conventions.
I highly doubt that even per capita medieval folks were trading more than today.
I highly doubt that even per capita medieval folks were trading more than today.
this is a very silly comparison, why not compare to the vikings then, or cavemen, how did they get their iPhones?
That's the point, they didn't. You won't get your iPhone without globalized trade.
There was very far-reaching trade since the beginning of time. It just had to be carried by people and animals, and accordingly you only find small precious things traded far around the continents.
I just read 'The dawn of everything' and it seems that knowledge about the past has been evolving quite a bit in the past few decades. Societies still cling to the old myths of progress and premeditated development from hunter-gatherers in small bands over cities to kingdoms to states, but this a) not based on facts and never was at all (the ones putting out these ideas basically invented them over coffee) and b) not what happened.
The way the common narrative is accepted now can really hold us back.
I just read 'The dawn of everything' and it seems that knowledge about the past has been evolving quite a bit in the past few decades. Societies still cling to the old myths of progress and premeditated development from hunter-gatherers in small bands over cities to kingdoms to states, but this a) not based on facts and never was at all (the ones putting out these ideas basically invented them over coffee) and b) not what happened.
The way the common narrative is accepted now can really hold us back.
You're mixing analyses. "burning coal" and "electricity" are not an activity. They are transformation methods to obtain energy. Nobody generates electricity or burns coal for the intrinsic purpose; those transformations generate energy that are used for activities. Those activities can however be reduced or substituted, and that is where we can find solutions.
Some methods for reducing the impact of transporting containers by ship:
* optimize (logistically, more efficient motors, capture wind energy)
* substitute (produce / consume more locally)
* reduce (consume less / differently)
.. of course all of those are more expensive and less practical.
I feel this is something that is often forgotten in public debate. Mass consumption, abundance and middle-class comfort are not a human right. Having a non-messed up planet, is. Behind your question is an implicit suggestion that you are willing to compromise, but only if it does not impact you, and that in the end, your and my children's future is subservient to our generation being able to consume cheaply and easily. This notion has already reached the German high courts, that have ruled that the state is currently failing to protect the safety of future generations.
I have been reading a lot lately on distributed and generational guilt, specifically how Germans and Japanese were not able to collectively act when their respective governments derailed and people where being beat up in the streets. And how their children regarded them.
And I am starting to think that we in the same position. We, society at large, know that what we are doing is endangering our collective future, and have known now for 20 or 30 years (the intellectual elite has known so since the 70's). Some of us are speaking out, but we sit back while our governments are inactive and empirical proof of a grim future is piling up.
My oldest son (10) was crying the other week, because this last hot summer has driven home for him, and many others with him, how life will inexorably change in the coming decades. How will his generation and their children remember us? Like the Germans that knew, but didn't act? Or like responsible adults that did not act in a selfish manner.
Some methods for reducing the impact of transporting containers by ship:
* optimize (logistically, more efficient motors, capture wind energy)
* substitute (produce / consume more locally)
* reduce (consume less / differently)
.. of course all of those are more expensive and less practical.
I feel this is something that is often forgotten in public debate. Mass consumption, abundance and middle-class comfort are not a human right. Having a non-messed up planet, is. Behind your question is an implicit suggestion that you are willing to compromise, but only if it does not impact you, and that in the end, your and my children's future is subservient to our generation being able to consume cheaply and easily. This notion has already reached the German high courts, that have ruled that the state is currently failing to protect the safety of future generations.
I have been reading a lot lately on distributed and generational guilt, specifically how Germans and Japanese were not able to collectively act when their respective governments derailed and people where being beat up in the streets. And how their children regarded them.
And I am starting to think that we in the same position. We, society at large, know that what we are doing is endangering our collective future, and have known now for 20 or 30 years (the intellectual elite has known so since the 70's). Some of us are speaking out, but we sit back while our governments are inactive and empirical proof of a grim future is piling up.
My oldest son (10) was crying the other week, because this last hot summer has driven home for him, and many others with him, how life will inexorably change in the coming decades. How will his generation and their children remember us? Like the Germans that knew, but didn't act? Or like responsible adults that did not act in a selfish manner.
> What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
Ships are not going anywhere as there are no other/better solutions. Using ships that are powered by something other than engines using the dirtiest form of oil allowed would be the best solution, and it could be a combination of alt sources of go juice on the same ship
Ships are not going anywhere as there are no other/better solutions. Using ships that are powered by something other than engines using the dirtiest form of oil allowed would be the best solution, and it could be a combination of alt sources of go juice on the same ship
> What is the alternative to transporting containers by ships?
reducing, repairing, buying laptops every 15 years instead of every 2 years, etc.. that's what we need, there's no miracle solution, just limiting our carbon impact under 2T per year for each of us
reducing, repairing, buying laptops every 15 years instead of every 2 years, etc.. that's what we need, there's no miracle solution, just limiting our carbon impact under 2T per year for each of us
I agree 2.5% is significant!
My argument is that shipping usage doesn't appear sensitive to price signals (based on the data we see from changes in prices).
This means that regulation is probably a better approach to reducing emissions here. This is what was done for cars and is shown to work there.
My argument is that shipping usage doesn't appear sensitive to price signals (based on the data we see from changes in prices).
This means that regulation is probably a better approach to reducing emissions here. This is what was done for cars and is shown to work there.
>Every .1% reduction counts.
As an approach I don't agree - I think it's only keeping carbon in the ground that matters. Burning it 50 years later isn't a meaningful improvement.
If it's going to be kept in the ground, that's the place to start - the markets will do the rest.
Efficiency first/alone (as policy) is flawed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
>That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it
We got here by non-renewable fuel extraction being profitable, not by variations in demand - that only affects the timescale of extraction. We didn't tax the polluters enough to break the economics driving climate change. We still don't.
As an approach I don't agree - I think it's only keeping carbon in the ground that matters. Burning it 50 years later isn't a meaningful improvement.
If it's going to be kept in the ground, that's the place to start - the markets will do the rest.
Efficiency first/alone (as policy) is flawed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
>That’s how we got here, ever so slightly increasing, and that’s how we must fix it
We got here by non-renewable fuel extraction being profitable, not by variations in demand - that only affects the timescale of extraction. We didn't tax the polluters enough to break the economics driving climate change. We still don't.
The problem with taxing polluters is that it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Those costs get passed down to consumers. So you're really asking for shared sacrifice from society in general, which has been a complete non-starter on this issue since the 1970s.
Could anyone who downvoted this explain their reasoning?
Is this statement too radical, not radical enough, ...? I am genuinely curious.
Depends on the type of emissions. Shipping uses bunker oil one of the most unclean fuels out there .
Few ports now are providing power supply so they don’t have to burn bunker oil while berthed and can also shutdown power systems to do maintenance, but connectors are not standard etc. IMO has reduced the % of sulfur allowed recently and so on . Still it is a problem.
Sulfur content is especially high and is estimated to cause 150,000 deaths/year and, 13% of SOx emissions is attributed to shipping[1]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-...
Few ports now are providing power supply so they don’t have to burn bunker oil while berthed and can also shutdown power systems to do maintenance, but connectors are not standard etc. IMO has reduced the % of sulfur allowed recently and so on . Still it is a problem.
Sulfur content is especially high and is estimated to cause 150,000 deaths/year and, 13% of SOx emissions is attributed to shipping[1]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02774-9#ref-link-...
A lot of countries have laws about which types of fuel can be used within territorial waters, usually they restrict it to marine diesel, so nobody is burning bunker oil in port.
Do ships have different fuel tanks to switch between just to enter territorial waters?
Some do, yes. Not sure how general this is. The price difference of the fuel is significant.
> notably the change in pricing didn't seem to substantially affect the volume
I don't think that means much.
Changes would be long-term, there is a lot of inflexibility short-term, you can't just create new suppliers locally overnight. It also depends on expectations of where the price will go. If it is expected to be a local maximum and that prices will sink again then few will take the price as signal to move production locally.
I don't think that means much.
Changes would be long-term, there is a lot of inflexibility short-term, you can't just create new suppliers locally overnight. It also depends on expectations of where the price will go. If it is expected to be a local maximum and that prices will sink again then few will take the price as signal to move production locally.
That sounds great but they don’t grow bananas in Canada, they also don’t make teslas or gpus here
[deleted]
US consumers import 25% of all global trade, despite being 4% of world population
But yes, when they have to pay a premium to win the auction, it's truly heartbreaking
Somebody light a candle for the suffering american consumer
But yes, when they have to pay a premium to win the auction, it's truly heartbreaking
Somebody light a candle for the suffering american consumer
I'm confused. 75% of the suffering (large majority) is still happening outside the US...
That's a good example of why I'm reluctant to read and rarely read such articles, the WSJ, or the MSM (mainstream media).
Also a good example of why, for such a topic, I want to see well done graphs over time. And the graphs should be as good as needed for, say, lab reports in freshman college physics.
And I want quality at least up to that of common high school standards for term papers, e.g., references to credible, hopefully primary, sources. As in a popular high school literature short story, I want to be able to "look it up".
The Internet is permitting new sources including some with some good reporting.
For the WSJ and MSM, for me, on paper they can't compete with Charmin and on the Internet are useless for wrapping dead fish heads. They want to grab me, by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, and as soon as I start reading their work I feel their fingers on me.
I do care, a lot, about the economy and news about business, but this WSJ article is a good example of why, still, I won't read the WSJ.
Also a good example of why, for such a topic, I want to see well done graphs over time. And the graphs should be as good as needed for, say, lab reports in freshman college physics.
And I want quality at least up to that of common high school standards for term papers, e.g., references to credible, hopefully primary, sources. As in a popular high school literature short story, I want to be able to "look it up".
The Internet is permitting new sources including some with some good reporting.
For the WSJ and MSM, for me, on paper they can't compete with Charmin and on the Internet are useless for wrapping dead fish heads. They want to grab me, by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, and as soon as I start reading their work I feel their fingers on me.
I do care, a lot, about the economy and news about business, but this WSJ article is a good example of why, still, I won't read the WSJ.
It seems like no one criticizing the article read it. There's a graph, starting in Feb 2020 so that it highlights the pandemic spike in rates and return to normalcy.
And the article is written in the most neutral tone possible, pretty clearly targeting a business audience that wants information about shipping rates because of their importance for the economy and financial markets.
And the article is written in the most neutral tone possible, pretty clearly targeting a business audience that wants information about shipping rates because of their importance for the economy and financial markets.
I just looked at the article of OP (original post) of this thread,
Costas Paris, "Ocean Shipping Rates Have Plunged 60% This Year", WSJ, Sept. 5, 2022 7:03 am ET, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ocean-shipping-rates-have-plung...
For
> There's a graph, starting in Feb 2020
I saw no graph.
For
> And the article is written in the most neutral tone possible,
I disagree: Instead the article is written with lots of adjectives instead of numerical quantities.
E.g., in the title of the article, there is "Plunged".
I object to "Plunged": When I was in college in math and physics, in grad school for my Ph.D. in pure/applied math, and taught optimization in an MBA program, I never used plunged. When I taught college calculus, I did a lot with derivatives that showed quantities increasing or decreasing but never used plunged. In my opinion, that word is intended to give the article, say, an emotional kick instead of
> the most neutral tone possible.
Other uses of adjectives I don't like include
"sinking, surging, easing, shrinking",
etc. When I pleased the highly concerned BoD and, thus, saved FedEx with some revenue projections from the differential equation
y'(t) = k y(t) (b - y(t))
I presented a clear graph with clear numerical quantities and never used any adjectives, e.g., surged. Uh, here t was time, in days, y(t) was revenue at time t, b was the maximum revenue from earlier estimates of the market size, and k was, as is common in calculus, a constant of proportionality, and y'(t) is the calculus first derivative, that is, the rate of growth of revenue in revenue per day. So, the assumption is that at each time t revenue will grow directly proportional to current number of happy customers and also the current number target customers not yet customers. Then, sure, the growth curve will be a lazy S approaching the maximum market size b asymptotically from below. The BoD cared.
I can't get anything meaningful from those adjectives. Instead I want to see numerical data, and for those uses of those adjective, the numerical data graphed over time.
Such uses of adjectives remind me of short stories in high school English class and a children's movie where a teacher assures that class
"adjectives are important in ANY writing".
The article has
> In 2019, the average cost to send a container across the Pacific to the U.S. West Coast was $1,500.
I doubt that anyone can do much with that one number $1,500. But a graph of the rates, or even the average rates in some version of average, from 2019, or some years before, to the present should be good progress understanding how rates have changed.
And still better would be, say, a good fitting regression model with independent variables from promising, common macro economic variables and variables particular to the container shipping industry -- that might let us make more sense out of rate variations, that is, identify causes (for a loose definition of cause) and make some progress predicting rates in the future. Gee, last time I heard, even Microsoft's spreadsheet software Excel would do the arithmetic for regression models!
Once a world class mathematician specializing in stochastic processes reviewed my work predicting the expected number of surviving US missile firing submarines in a scenario of global nuclear war limited to sea. So, I had a model and some real data and gave expected values over time, including in a graph. The mathematician had an objection and I reminded him of how to make an application of the strong law of large numbers for bounded, independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables, and he agreed with me with "that's a good way to look at it". So, with some more analysis, it should be possible to make some useful predictions of shipping rates over time -- the article could be improved by doing such.
For the "uncertainty" mentioned in the article, my Ph.D. dissertation was in best decision making over time under uncertainty, stochastic optimal control, and that might be relevant to customers of the container shipping industry. The application I made at the time had to do with varying oil prices -- hmm ...! So, the article could be improved not just mentioning uncertainty but making progress on doing something about it.
Costas Paris, "Ocean Shipping Rates Have Plunged 60% This Year", WSJ, Sept. 5, 2022 7:03 am ET, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ocean-shipping-rates-have-plung...
For
> There's a graph, starting in Feb 2020
I saw no graph.
For
> And the article is written in the most neutral tone possible,
I disagree: Instead the article is written with lots of adjectives instead of numerical quantities.
E.g., in the title of the article, there is "Plunged".
I object to "Plunged": When I was in college in math and physics, in grad school for my Ph.D. in pure/applied math, and taught optimization in an MBA program, I never used plunged. When I taught college calculus, I did a lot with derivatives that showed quantities increasing or decreasing but never used plunged. In my opinion, that word is intended to give the article, say, an emotional kick instead of
> the most neutral tone possible.
Other uses of adjectives I don't like include
"sinking, surging, easing, shrinking",
etc. When I pleased the highly concerned BoD and, thus, saved FedEx with some revenue projections from the differential equation
y'(t) = k y(t) (b - y(t))
I presented a clear graph with clear numerical quantities and never used any adjectives, e.g., surged. Uh, here t was time, in days, y(t) was revenue at time t, b was the maximum revenue from earlier estimates of the market size, and k was, as is common in calculus, a constant of proportionality, and y'(t) is the calculus first derivative, that is, the rate of growth of revenue in revenue per day. So, the assumption is that at each time t revenue will grow directly proportional to current number of happy customers and also the current number target customers not yet customers. Then, sure, the growth curve will be a lazy S approaching the maximum market size b asymptotically from below. The BoD cared.
I can't get anything meaningful from those adjectives. Instead I want to see numerical data, and for those uses of those adjective, the numerical data graphed over time.
Such uses of adjectives remind me of short stories in high school English class and a children's movie where a teacher assures that class
"adjectives are important in ANY writing".
The article has
> In 2019, the average cost to send a container across the Pacific to the U.S. West Coast was $1,500.
I doubt that anyone can do much with that one number $1,500. But a graph of the rates, or even the average rates in some version of average, from 2019, or some years before, to the present should be good progress understanding how rates have changed.
And still better would be, say, a good fitting regression model with independent variables from promising, common macro economic variables and variables particular to the container shipping industry -- that might let us make more sense out of rate variations, that is, identify causes (for a loose definition of cause) and make some progress predicting rates in the future. Gee, last time I heard, even Microsoft's spreadsheet software Excel would do the arithmetic for regression models!
Once a world class mathematician specializing in stochastic processes reviewed my work predicting the expected number of surviving US missile firing submarines in a scenario of global nuclear war limited to sea. So, I had a model and some real data and gave expected values over time, including in a graph. The mathematician had an objection and I reminded him of how to make an application of the strong law of large numbers for bounded, independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables, and he agreed with me with "that's a good way to look at it". So, with some more analysis, it should be possible to make some useful predictions of shipping rates over time -- the article could be improved by doing such.
For the "uncertainty" mentioned in the article, my Ph.D. dissertation was in best decision making over time under uncertainty, stochastic optimal control, and that might be relevant to customers of the container shipping industry. The application I made at the time had to do with varying oil prices -- hmm ...! So, the article could be improved not just mentioning uncertainty but making progress on doing something about it.
So where do you get that kind of analytical journalism then if not in MaiNsTReAm mEDiA?
For your
> So where do you get that kind of analytical journalism then if not in MaiNsTReAm mEDiA?
Part of my discussion was to explain that
"that kind of analytical journalism"
is not available in the MSM. Soooo, can't get such journalism from the MSM. So, get it elsewhere or don't get it at all.
For a little more depth, the MSM has been in business for 100+ years, paper, radio, TV, and now the Internet. My view is that in this time they have found some techniques they believe in. In simple terms, they discovered long ago that they didn't know how to get many readers for
"that kind of analytical journalism".
And the MSM publishers are astoundingly similar in the "techniques" they use. Indeed, when one publisher gets a hot headline, many of the others will copy it, content, terminology, etc.
In particular, for numerical data presented as I outlined, apparently the MSM hates that: (A) They concluded 100 years ago and have not changed their mind since that such numerical data presentations will cause the eyes of their audience to glaze over and the readers to move on. (B) As can suspect in the subject of this thread, presenting the data as I outlined, especially graphed over time, and as already observed in this thread, as is obvious, would make the alarmism of their story disappear. That is, one of the reasons for sloppy, incomplete reporting is that this is an easy way to get what we now call click bait. And one of the main reasons I want the
"that kind of analytical journalism"
is to reduce the amount of click bait.
And, sure, there is the remark that, following what I am asking for, the MSM "would publish monthly" -- extra credit for knowing the source.
That's not true, of course, since there is nearly no end of content to be reported, but, again, the MSM has treasured techniques, e.g.,
If it bleeds, it leads.
I wrote:
> The Internet is permitting new sources including some with some good reporting.
I didn't say the sources exist yet!
Such sources will appeal to fractions of the current MSM audience. Right: I am predicting that the audience will fracture into many small audiences. In a different sense from the MSM audience, this prediction of fracture is an assumption of my startup.
But for your question of where to get
"that kind of analytical journalism"
one source is
http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/
I suspect that there are more and as time goes on will be many more.
Well, there are more:
(1) YouTube is becoming a single source for essentially all video content. Some of the content is "analytical". There promises to be more content, i.e., there are YouTubers.
(2) There are the math/science sites
https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-news/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/
(3) For space, astronomy, and related physics, there is
http://www.universetoday.com/
Uh, it is easy to notice reports of financial problems at CNN, WaPo, and the NYT. Since these are all ad supported, the problems are audience problems -- audience too small. Soooo, the MSM is changing, maybe just slowly going out of business.
A lot of the content creators and publishers I've mentioned are essentially one person efforts. This means that, with the fraction I mentioned, the MSM is facing some severe pressure on cost of doing business.
> So where do you get that kind of analytical journalism then if not in MaiNsTReAm mEDiA?
Part of my discussion was to explain that
"that kind of analytical journalism"
is not available in the MSM. Soooo, can't get such journalism from the MSM. So, get it elsewhere or don't get it at all.
For a little more depth, the MSM has been in business for 100+ years, paper, radio, TV, and now the Internet. My view is that in this time they have found some techniques they believe in. In simple terms, they discovered long ago that they didn't know how to get many readers for
"that kind of analytical journalism".
And the MSM publishers are astoundingly similar in the "techniques" they use. Indeed, when one publisher gets a hot headline, many of the others will copy it, content, terminology, etc.
In particular, for numerical data presented as I outlined, apparently the MSM hates that: (A) They concluded 100 years ago and have not changed their mind since that such numerical data presentations will cause the eyes of their audience to glaze over and the readers to move on. (B) As can suspect in the subject of this thread, presenting the data as I outlined, especially graphed over time, and as already observed in this thread, as is obvious, would make the alarmism of their story disappear. That is, one of the reasons for sloppy, incomplete reporting is that this is an easy way to get what we now call click bait. And one of the main reasons I want the
"that kind of analytical journalism"
is to reduce the amount of click bait.
And, sure, there is the remark that, following what I am asking for, the MSM "would publish monthly" -- extra credit for knowing the source.
That's not true, of course, since there is nearly no end of content to be reported, but, again, the MSM has treasured techniques, e.g.,
If it bleeds, it leads.
I wrote:
> The Internet is permitting new sources including some with some good reporting.
I didn't say the sources exist yet!
Such sources will appeal to fractions of the current MSM audience. Right: I am predicting that the audience will fracture into many small audiences. In a different sense from the MSM audience, this prediction of fracture is an assumption of my startup.
But for your question of where to get
"that kind of analytical journalism"
one source is
http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/
I suspect that there are more and as time goes on will be many more.
Well, there are more:
(1) YouTube is becoming a single source for essentially all video content. Some of the content is "analytical". There promises to be more content, i.e., there are YouTubers.
(2) There are the math/science sites
https://simonsfoundation.org/category/features/science-news/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/
(3) For space, astronomy, and related physics, there is
http://www.universetoday.com/
Uh, it is easy to notice reports of financial problems at CNN, WaPo, and the NYT. Since these are all ad supported, the problems are audience problems -- audience too small. Soooo, the MSM is changing, maybe just slowly going out of business.
A lot of the content creators and publishers I've mentioned are essentially one person efforts. This means that, with the fraction I mentioned, the MSM is facing some severe pressure on cost of doing business.
> "that kind of analytical journalism" one source is http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/
Why is it that I am totally unsuprised that someone who is anti "main stream media" thinks that that steaming pile of dogshit is "journalism".
They are fucking musings - its in the title.
Why is it that I am totally unsuprised that someone who is anti "main stream media" thinks that that steaming pile of dogshit is "journalism".
They are fucking musings - its in the title.
I had a look too, because I'm always looking for new sources of information and I was willing to entertain the possibility of this being one. It's not. Just throwing in some numbers doesn't make something analytical. Being analytical means analyzing. It means collecting the right data to support or refute a thesis, and applying a defensible methodology to their analysis. Without that, it's just numerology at best. Throwing random unsourced factoids around is just bait for the credulous; it's exactly what anyone bashing "MSM" should know enough to recognize and avoid.
Unfortunately, some people will always conflate comfort with credibility. If they prefer certain conclusions, they'll overlook how those conclusions were reached. It's called confirmation bias, and GP seriously needs to look it up.
Unfortunately, some people will always conflate comfort with credibility. If they prefer certain conclusions, they'll overlook how those conclusions were reached. It's called confirmation bias, and GP seriously needs to look it up.
There were some good analytical pieces on (A) the fact that we are and have been in a recession and (B) fentanyl and some of its money flows. And there were many more.
Besides, the site is nearly all
"that kind of analytical journalism"
I outlined.
Besides, the site is nearly all
"that kind of analytical journalism"
I outlined.
* https://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/renting-votes-and-forgi... :: no sources
* https://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/the-chinese-mexican-fen... :: no sources
It's been some weeks since I read the article, but one of the pieces of content was how cheap 1 Kg of fentanyl was in Mexico and how much, from memory, something over $10 million, 1 Kg sold for on US streets.
That was some really good information, e.g., the street revenue is providing money enough to buy off likely some politicians.
There was more analytical content there, right, however no partial differential equations, than I saw anywhere else.
Sources? The common high school term paper writing standards want references to credible sources, hopefully primary. In this case, fentanyl from the Mexican drug cartels, the information is terrific and publishing sources might be dangerous.
For the article on the recession, there was good data that clearly established that, according to the usual definition of a recession, we are in one. As I recall, the data presented was detailed and proved the point. I'm not returning to read the piece again, but I was thrilled with how solid was the case made when I did read it.
Meanwhile I've seen a lot of words about recession in other media with never any actual definition given or actual data from good sources and responding to the definition. E.g., as I recall, some economists are quoted as predicting that we WILL be in a recession (suggesting that we are not yet, when the economist was quoted which was still after the article). To me, the other media just toss around recession while omitting any meaningful content.
That was some really good information, e.g., the street revenue is providing money enough to buy off likely some politicians.
There was more analytical content there, right, however no partial differential equations, than I saw anywhere else.
Sources? The common high school term paper writing standards want references to credible sources, hopefully primary. In this case, fentanyl from the Mexican drug cartels, the information is terrific and publishing sources might be dangerous.
For the article on the recession, there was good data that clearly established that, according to the usual definition of a recession, we are in one. As I recall, the data presented was detailed and proved the point. I'm not returning to read the piece again, but I was thrilled with how solid was the case made when I did read it.
Meanwhile I've seen a lot of words about recession in other media with never any actual definition given or actual data from good sources and responding to the definition. E.g., as I recall, some economists are quoted as predicting that we WILL be in a recession (suggesting that we are not yet, when the economist was quoted which was still after the article). To me, the other media just toss around recession while omitting any meaningful content.
https://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/the-chinese-mexican-fen...
You seriously read that "piece" and thought - here is some "analytical journalism"
Where is the analysis? Where is the journalism? [This is sarcasm.]
You seriously read that "piece" and thought - here is some "analytical journalism"
Where is the analysis? Where is the journalism? [This is sarcasm.]
I was thrilled by the article, e.g., how much analytical content it had. Apparently you weren't.
[deleted]
Recommend trying the free 1440 Daily Journal. They avoid the below/the/belt emotional crap that other sources use to grab attention;
https://news.join1440.com/
https://news.join1440.com/
I just joined it. Apparently they don't create or really publish any content but just give summaries of and links to content. Maybe one advantage is that apparently they curate the content they provide links to. That could be good, and maybe it will encourage more analytical, better, content.
Yes, they curate, but also summarize the the major pieces in their daily email. The summaries are not inflammatory or emotional. Think Walter Cronkite.
I have seen the mob cosplaying as "journalists" fighinting against the "Mainstream Media". They are more of a joke than Fox news or CNN.
Would be nice if authors just compared things to 2019 or at least added that comparison to their report, this is how businesses look at their own numbers every since 2020.
> Would be nice if authors just compared things to 2019
Why not 1985? Why a 3 year window and not a decade window? or Century? Or how it has changed over the last 12 parsecs?
The Baltic Dry index is down 68% the last year to belew 1988 levels.
Why not 1985? Why a 3 year window and not a decade window? or Century? Or how it has changed over the last 12 parsecs?
The Baltic Dry index is down 68% the last year to belew 1988 levels.
That would not fit their narrative though.
Cherry picking data to fit your point is stats 101 for "journalists"
Cherry picking data to fit your point is stats 101 for "journalists"
What agenda do you think Costas Paris of the Wall Street Journal is pushing here?
There doesn't need to be a hidden agenda—they simply want eye-catching headlines to drive clicks to their site.
"Ocean shipping rates have plunged 60% this year" -- I guess that's somewhat more eye-catching than "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative", but not by much.
It's therefore very frustrating that Google search on factual data is entirely dominated by proprietary data sources like statistia (https://www.statista.com/), whereas the sources are mostly open for free access somewhere lacking the necessary treaks to make them available.
>Cherry picking data to fit your point is stats 101 for "journalists"
What "point"? Shipping rates are down 60% in a year. That is a fact.
I guess business reporting is too complicated for some people here.
What "point"? Shipping rates are down 60% in a year. That is a fact.
I guess business reporting is too complicated for some people here.
I didn't know shipping rates were falling, let alone falling this much. So this is news for me.
But still way above "normal", which is about $1000-$1500/TEU from China to Los Angeles.
Those rates have never been sustainable in the long run, back when you got around 2-3 k from Shanghai to Rotterdam. That was the time when Hanjin went under, for example. Great for shippers, bad for carriers. Then we had Covid, Ukraine and all that and rates are still far from normal. It seems to get better so.
> This seems like a non-story.
It’s still very much a story. A big question has been whether recent inflation would be transitory. Ocean shipping rates coming back down means that at least this one facet of inflation will end up being transitory.
It’s still very much a story. A big question has been whether recent inflation would be transitory. Ocean shipping rates coming back down means that at least this one facet of inflation will end up being transitory.
Oh, it's a non-story, but the headline is clickbait they couldn't pass up
What's clickbait-y about it? "Cost of ocean shipping doing exactly what we expected" doesn't compel me to click.
...I think you just answered your own question, no?
But "plunging by 60% this year" is exactly what most informed people expected shipping rates to do. Therefore, the headline is not clickbait-y.
Clickbait-y titles are those that use wording to make something mundane sound much more interesting or important. The fact that this is what most informed people expected shipping rates to do is exactly why it's clickbait-y. Similarly, most informed people expect an immense nuclear fireball to light up San Francisco tomorrow but titling your weather forecast that way would be clickbait.
> use wording to make something mundane sound much more interesting or important.
Yes, but that doesn't apply here. Straight up matter of fact statements, like the one used in this title, is as mundane and uninteresting as is possible. The only thing that could garner less interest would be to permanently cut off all communication with others. The topic itself carries some interest, but the headline doesn't add to it.
"This one weird trick allows you to save 60% on ocean freight. International shippers hate him." would have been clickbait-y.
Yes, but that doesn't apply here. Straight up matter of fact statements, like the one used in this title, is as mundane and uninteresting as is possible. The only thing that could garner less interest would be to permanently cut off all communication with others. The topic itself carries some interest, but the headline doesn't add to it.
"This one weird trick allows you to save 60% on ocean freight. International shippers hate him." would have been clickbait-y.
Yes it does. The use of the word plunge is very much not matter of fact, and connotes that the decrease is faster and/or greater than would normally be expected. Again, nuclear fireball is a perfectly accurate description of the sun, but what matters is the first thing that pops into someone's mind when they hear it described that way. The title could have easily been rephrased to be mundane and matter of fact, for example as "Shipping rates decreased 60% year over year as industry moves past pandemic"
That you might be able to make it even more clickbait-y does not make the current headline not-clickbait.
That you might be able to make it even more clickbait-y does not make the current headline not-clickbait.
> The use of the word plunge is very much not matter of fact
No. The word has a well defined meaning in an economic context and is used regularly per that definition. You can't get any more matter of fact. If it was something like "Ocean shipping rates have jumped off a cliff without a parachute towards its impending fiery death this year" you'd have a stronger case.
> and connotes that the decrease is faster and/or greater than would normally be expected.
No. It only connotes that it happened quickly. There is no association to expectation colloquially or by definition. A 60% decline in eight months is fast compared to historical norms regardless of whether or not it was expected. That the decline was fast is worthwhile information to communicate.
> Again, nuclear fireball is a perfectly accurate description of the sun
Accurate, but abnormal usage. This is incomparable to the common usage of plunge. A better analogy would be the headline: "Sun to light up San Francisco tomorrow". To "light up" could mean to set on fire. But, given the clear context and regular usage of the words, it's a stretch to think people would be tricked into clicking the link because they think SF will be ablaze.
> "Shipping rates decreased 60% year over year as industry moves past pandemic"
Thing is, had you been compelled to read the article you would have known that shipping rates decreased by more than 73% year over year. Given that the headline didn't compel you to read the article we have further evidence of it not being clickbait.
No. The word has a well defined meaning in an economic context and is used regularly per that definition. You can't get any more matter of fact. If it was something like "Ocean shipping rates have jumped off a cliff without a parachute towards its impending fiery death this year" you'd have a stronger case.
> and connotes that the decrease is faster and/or greater than would normally be expected.
No. It only connotes that it happened quickly. There is no association to expectation colloquially or by definition. A 60% decline in eight months is fast compared to historical norms regardless of whether or not it was expected. That the decline was fast is worthwhile information to communicate.
> Again, nuclear fireball is a perfectly accurate description of the sun
Accurate, but abnormal usage. This is incomparable to the common usage of plunge. A better analogy would be the headline: "Sun to light up San Francisco tomorrow". To "light up" could mean to set on fire. But, given the clear context and regular usage of the words, it's a stretch to think people would be tricked into clicking the link because they think SF will be ablaze.
> "Shipping rates decreased 60% year over year as industry moves past pandemic"
Thing is, had you been compelled to read the article you would have known that shipping rates decreased by more than 73% year over year. Given that the headline didn't compel you to read the article we have further evidence of it not being clickbait.
Its making quite a splash!
I buy a lot of stuff from Europe for some of my weird hobbies and shipping rates have gone through the roof. I presume due to oil prices. I haven't charted this but anecdotally shipping is the same or more than what I'm buying
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250636/global-container...
Costs peaked at 5x the pre-pandemic value, and are now down to 3x the pre-pandemic value.
Costs peaked at 5x the pre-pandemic value, and are now down to 3x the pre-pandemic value.
Thank you! You have a talent for precis!
>>... While still above pre-pandemic levels...
This endless comparison between "this year" and "last year" seems both meaningless and ripe for headlines when comparing in-pandemic with out-pandemic years.
I get it. 2020 and 2021 messed up just about every statistic ever. In 2021 we get articles about massive rate hikes, in 2022 we get more articles about massive rate falls.
2020 was like an earthquake. Such a massive disruption will have second, third, fourth order effects for a while. But measuring "earth shaking has dropped by 90% since 5 minutes ago" isn't really information of any use.
On the other hand "all buildings are restored to pre-earthquake levels, please carry on as normal" is both highly useful, and won't make it to the front page.
This endless comparison between "this year" and "last year" seems both meaningless and ripe for headlines when comparing in-pandemic with out-pandemic years.
I get it. 2020 and 2021 messed up just about every statistic ever. In 2021 we get articles about massive rate hikes, in 2022 we get more articles about massive rate falls.
2020 was like an earthquake. Such a massive disruption will have second, third, fourth order effects for a while. But measuring "earth shaking has dropped by 90% since 5 minutes ago" isn't really information of any use.
On the other hand "all buildings are restored to pre-earthquake levels, please carry on as normal" is both highly useful, and won't make it to the front page.
There are a fair few questions for which direction is more important than magnitude. That being said, I'll take both if possible.
Relevant XKCD
https://xkcd.com/2502/
I can put some perspective on how this is affecting prices.
I work for a food-2-go supplies business, we sell packaging to coffee shops and the like. Most of our products are UK made and although we don’t directly import anything a few of our suppliers do.
An example is one 40ft container will hold about 750 cases of 500 x 12oz double walled paper coffee cups, in 2019 would cost us about 30GBP per case wholesale delivered to our UK warehouse.
To ship a 40ft container from China into the UK pre COVID was around $1500-$2000. It started rising as COVID hit (for quite a wide number of reasons all combined) and last year it was peaking at $25,000, most of the year is seemed to be about $20,000. It has dropped over the recent few months,as the article says, but is still very high.
At $2,000 shipping per 750 cases out of the £30 cost that’s about $2.66 / £2.30 per case in container shipping costs. At the peak it worked out to be about $33 / £29 per case. You can see that doubled the UK landed price of the product and so our costs rocketed up.
I work for a food-2-go supplies business, we sell packaging to coffee shops and the like. Most of our products are UK made and although we don’t directly import anything a few of our suppliers do.
An example is one 40ft container will hold about 750 cases of 500 x 12oz double walled paper coffee cups, in 2019 would cost us about 30GBP per case wholesale delivered to our UK warehouse.
To ship a 40ft container from China into the UK pre COVID was around $1500-$2000. It started rising as COVID hit (for quite a wide number of reasons all combined) and last year it was peaking at $25,000, most of the year is seemed to be about $20,000. It has dropped over the recent few months,as the article says, but is still very high.
At $2,000 shipping per 750 cases out of the £30 cost that’s about $2.66 / £2.30 per case in container shipping costs. At the peak it worked out to be about $33 / £29 per case. You can see that doubled the UK landed price of the product and so our costs rocketed up.
Did your prices increase to maintain the profit per unit, or did your profit per unit increase / decrease after your price hikes?
I'm guessing they took a hit to margin, but even if you take the margin to 0, you're still not helping. Most companies who are in the business of importing/exporting goods are going to be in the sub 10% range. When shipping prices go up like they have, you're literally off by an order of magnitude. Single digit margin cuts isn't going to make a dent.
We have had to increase prices, but on most things aren't maintaining the normal percentage margin. We've really trimmed down on some products, which is making it tricky because our operating costs are going up too.
Most people in the supply chain are doing the same, 'breathing in' and hoping we get through this mess.
Most people in the supply chain are doing the same, 'breathing in' and hoping we get through this mess.
Just a reminder that price drops and slowing inflation are definitely welcome but we should consider the drivers behind them. Supply shortages may be easing or demand might be slowing. Depending on the reason, slowing demand can be an indicator that the economy is beginning to roll over and die. That is sort of the intent behind fed tightening, and some slowdowns are expected, but I just want to throw it out there that price drops aren't necessarily a cause for celebration.
In this case prices falling is likely a good thing. One of the reasons shipping prices are so high is because suppliers are shipping earlier than they would to make sure they hit the market on time. There's no use trying to meet demand for back to school season if your products can't make it to the shelf until October.
This massively pulls demand forward puts stress on already stressed infrastructure and ultimately pushed shipping costs through the roof. As the supply chain stabilizes, suppliers will start building in less buffer for shipping problems and costs will ultimately go down.
This massively pulls demand forward puts stress on already stressed infrastructure and ultimately pushed shipping costs through the roof. As the supply chain stabilizes, suppliers will start building in less buffer for shipping problems and costs will ultimately go down.
I don't know specifics but it sounds like this is simply the rebound effect after covid etc. Demand fell, shipping messed up, demand skyrockets, shipping gets congested and super expensive. Stores have too much inventory, people have less money or perceived money from stock/crypto gains... now demand falls back to a reasonable level while supply chains are less congested
Means we are going back to normal.
Means we are going back to normal.
The cost of shipping items by ocean, or the number of items shipped by ocean? Ah, English...
> Freight rates on the main ocean trade routes are sinking during what is typically the industry’s peak season after cargo owners shipped holiday goods early and inflation dented consumer demand.
Even this doesn't disambiguate. The answer is that it's about the cost of shipping:
> The cost to ship a 40-foot container from China to the U.S. West Coast now stands around $5,400 a box, down 60% from January, according to the Freightos Baltic Index.
> The cost to ship a 40-foot container from China to the U.S. West Coast now stands around $5,400 a box, down 60% from January, according to the Freightos Baltic Index.
I would guess that a 60% reduction in ocean freight volume could only be the result of the worst global depression since the industrial revolution.
I got curious:
Year | Billions of tons
2020 | 10.65
2019 | 11.07
2018 | 11.02
~~~
2010 | 8.4
2009 | 7.86
2008 | 8.23
I got curious:
Year | Billions of tons
2020 | 10.65
2019 | 11.07
2018 | 11.02
~~~
2010 | 8.4
2009 | 7.86
2008 | 8.23
Still 4x+ February 2020 rates, so let's hope they keep plunging.
I have a buddy that just left flex port telling me they are buckling down for winter in hopes to outlast other companies in hopes to gobble up market share as they fold.
He's been talking to me about this for a little bit now it seems to me globalization is in a bit of a bear market for the first time in what 80 years?
He's been talking to me about this for a little bit now it seems to me globalization is in a bit of a bear market for the first time in what 80 years?
Well, and they climbed 60% last year, so we're back to 'normal'. See the Baltic Dry Index [1].
[1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/baltic
[1]: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/baltic
Just a nitpick: if something climbs by 60% and then falls by 60%, it hasn't returned to the original level, but to 1.6 * 0.4 = 64% of the original. (Rates rose more than 60% in 2021, as your chart shows. As well as showing how much information is lost when just considering the annual change!)
Interesting how that index had a massive spike and crash in 2008. As if the global economy seriously overextended itself and then faltered.
I hadn't realized how much activity in the real world was linked to the financial excesses that were going on before the debt crisis.
I hadn't realized how much activity in the real world was linked to the financial excesses that were going on before the debt crisis.
A friend of mine in the logistics business says that we’re still at 10x what the per-container shipping rates were in early 2020 for some routes, and that fuel prices and personnel are now becoming a significant part of the overhead again.
So does that mean that the prices for such shipping is unlikely to drop in the short to medium term? Fuel prices don't look to be falling by much with the ukraine war, and personnel costs wouldn't drop until inflation drops.
Fuel is super high, but isn't extraordinarily high right. And congestion sounds like it is less.
One way on looking on that is that it is bad, as cargo prices are very large. But, as in case of every problem, there is an opportunity here: we can shorten supply chains. Maybe established western Europe companies can have suppliers from Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Ukraine, Morocco or Algeria instead of China or India or Vietnam.
Shorter route, more eco, as less fuel will be burned, if production is just around a corner it is easier to make sure manufacturing does not violate workers rights, does not abuse children, does not use slave workers. And we can stop feeding Chinese communistic regime, we see how dependence on country like Russia ends up.
Shorter route, more eco, as less fuel will be burned, if production is just around a corner it is easier to make sure manufacturing does not violate workers rights, does not abuse children, does not use slave workers. And we can stop feeding Chinese communistic regime, we see how dependence on country like Russia ends up.
> Maybe established western Europe companies can have suppliers from Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Ukraine
These sources of cheap labor are already dried up. The managerial slumlords treating lower ranks like trash have troubles finding more subordinates, e.g. ask Musk how it's going hiring Poles and Ukrainians at his Branderburg's manufacture.
These sources of cheap labor are already dried up. The managerial slumlords treating lower ranks like trash have troubles finding more subordinates, e.g. ask Musk how it's going hiring Poles and Ukrainians at his Branderburg's manufacture.
So what's the historical variation on rates? This article headline means nothing without that basic datum.
thanks but that's a paid link. much prefer ones I can see.
Oh by "rates" they mean "cost". I read that as "the rate of items shipped per day has plunged by 60%", which would be far more concerning. Written by a business major.
Misleading title; rates still have a ways to fall to regress to the pre-covid mean.
s/plunged/reverted/
Clickbait
Clickbait
Tangential - but /should/ shipping rates be low? Doesn't it make sense for it to be expensive to move something from one side of the world to the other?
For example - invasive species, like Asian Carp. Would they be so prevalent fresh water bodies around the world if we shipped (by sea) as much as we have in the past?
Cost of labor. If it was cost prohibitive to ship across the world, wouldn't much more get manufactured locally? Wouldn't there be more attention to a living wage in developed countries?
For example - invasive species, like Asian Carp. Would they be so prevalent fresh water bodies around the world if we shipped (by sea) as much as we have in the past?
Cost of labor. If it was cost prohibitive to ship across the world, wouldn't much more get manufactured locally? Wouldn't there be more attention to a living wage in developed countries?
Asian carp were intentionally brought to the US for aquaculture in the 1970s. Some of those fish then escaped into other bodies of water. The cost of ocean shipping had nothing to do with it.
https://nyis.info/invasive_species/asian-carp/
https://nyis.info/invasive_species/asian-carp/
Thank you, I didnt know that.
How about other invasive species? How about zebra muscles: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-zebra-mussels-and-why-sho...
How about other invasive species? How about zebra muscles: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-zebra-mussels-and-why-sho...
The Ballast Water Management Convention is intended to prevent ships from introducing any more invasive species like zebra mussels.
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/BWM-defau...
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/BWM-defau...
Thank you for the response. In all seriousness, you are giving me an education on shipping that I did not have.
However, to my point, is it possible that invasive species would be less infested in freshwater areas had we as a species done much less sea based transport because it was cost prohibitive?
However, to my point, is it possible that invasive species would be less infested in freshwater areas had we as a species done much less sea based transport because it was cost prohibitive?