This is not complicated.
Giving people money not to work results in more money and less production. But there's a bunch of people with money, so demand is higher than it'd otherwise be.
Giving people money not to work results in more money and less production. But there's a bunch of people with money, so demand is higher than it'd otherwise be.
In any case, do you have any proof that more food is bought? I'm having a hard time believing this, unless people were lacking food previously.
If they didn't spend that money on food, how did those prices increase? Which parts of the stuff that goes into food increased? Links to actual data is severely missing from all the assertions made here. A moderate one-time stimulus check is responsible, really? Because all that other money that was created was not given to many people and I would like to see some data if you want to claim it ended up with them anyway by now. General wide-spread wage increases of according size, for example.
So, food prices can go up and down even if food-specific demand is inelastic (that is, even if people eat the same amount and quality of food regardless of price).
FWIW I've found my food demand not to be 100% inelastic -- I have changed where I get fast food as a result of some price increases, and I've found that in times when I'm not making a steady income, I find it easier to maintain or lose weight.
We have supply chains disorganized because COVID, bad crops and, specially, crazy energy prices (that affect everything).
How could prices not go up?