A detailed explanation is far too much work for this thread.
No, like virtually any issue of its kind, it can be summarized pretty easily. We are talking about massive changes, not trying to explain a 2% hike. Big broad brush explanations for huge changes are easy, just because of their sheer magnitude.
{Eta: watch how simple- Vietnam had a bit of weather for the last 6 years and the entire country is currently under 10 meters of water. Most people don't know that Vietnam supplies 75% of the world's coffee beans, so this created a massive global shortage, which made every other bean supplier producer say "well that had nothing to do with me, but imma jack my prices up now bitch, just because I can". By the way, there aint been no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ coffee shortage, with mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ jonesing outside the shuttered up Starbucks. Demand is more thsn adequately being met}
If you really want to know then do your own research,
I brought up coffee because, as i said, it was one of the very few commodities that i recall the exact prices across years. The actual retailer wrote me, ss i said, explaining that it was nothing more than following global inflation trends. I have considered that claim, and determined that it is a lie. Retail pricing has not generally ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tripled across the board.
but suffice to say that 'there was this weather in two countries' is not the nothing burger you imply. Bad weather can totally destroy crops leading to a massive supply shortfall.
It can. That does not make a vague handwave at the weather any more a robust explanation. Maybe the opening statement where it is then shown how it ends up being triple the cost, but standalone it's weak ass T.
{Eta: when someone says "yeah there was this weather, you know, so that explains it all. Good enough, yeah?", they are either not very sharp, or were predisposed to accepting any explanation right out of the gate. Which is also not particularly sharp, so... there's that. You have to actually keep connecting the dots to show how it ended up in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ tripling, or you're just blowing smoke}
Coffee demand is relatively inelastic because people are addicted to it.
Or just like it as a relatively inexpensive luxury. I think that packs more punch than suggesting we are a planet of addicts in back alleys giving handjobs for a soy latte.
That means the price will vary wildly as supply changes, which is exactly what we see. To determine whether some other factor like 'they are jacking because they can' is involved you have to run the numbers. If normal market forces can't explain it you have an argument. I bet you won't though - you just do what everybody else does - assert that price gouging is the reason with no evidence. That might work in other forums, but not here.
Try that shoe on for size yourself- "bad weather over in 'Nam, dude" is a piss poor number crunchng, n'est-ce pas? Does that pack evidentiary soundness? Cuz it sounds pretty meaningless from here.