Sure, let's talk facts.

1) Fixed the link to include the four year gas chart. Up from $2.03 to $3.57 in four years. Doesn't bode well for your case. Short link due to ampersands:

http://goo.gl/R4r0f

2) You seem to grant that inflation contributed to the rise in food prices. A one off drought can't explain the persistence of the rise since 2008, or the fact that food inflation caused the riots which led to the Arab Spring in 2011.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8492078/How-the...

  The first graph illustrates the correlation between the 
  prices of food and the Fed’s purchase of US Treasuries 
  (i.e. its quantitative easing programmes). (A widely-
  discussed graph illustrating correlation between QE and 
  broader commodities indices can be seen here.) We see how 
  the food price index broadly stabilised through late 2009 
  and early 2010, then rose again from mid-2010 as 
  quantitative easing was re-started (QE2) following Ben 
  Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech of August 27 – with prices 
  rising of about 40% over an eight month period. Similar 
  correlations can be observed between Fed purchases and 
  wider commodities indices, but let’s focus on food for now.

  ... But the reality is that a rise in commodity prices is 
  precisely what theory predicts would be a consequence of 
  QE2, and the data give the same picture – we aren’t 
  investigating a contentious mystery in the data; we are 
  seeing precisely what we ought to have expected. 

Indeed. The amazing thing is how vehemently people insist that tripling the monetary base in a few years won't cause inflation. This is a simple matter of ratios. Bernanke, Obama, Bush, Greenspan, and Krugman have pursued a policy that enriches banks and shields them from risk by diluting dollar holders. If you understand the concept of dilution in a cap table, you should understand this much: the printed dollars are deposited in the accounts of large banks, enriching the very richest and making everyone else worse off.

Krugman himself is a knowing accomplice, one who always pulls his punches with respect to the banks:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/failure-is-a-fai...

  One thing that keeps coming up in comments, both here and 
  on my column, is the widespread belief that all we need to 
  do on the banking front is (a) break up the big banks, so 
  that none of them are too big to fail (b) promise not to 
  bail out any banks in the future. That way, the claim goes, 
  bankers will know that they will face dire consequences if 
  they misbehave, and market discipline will do the rest.

  Dream on.

  ...

  But just letting banks fail isn’t going to happen — nor 
  should it. In practice, talking about doing so is just an 
  excuse to avoid real reform.
  

At the end of the day Krugman is for the bailouts, for the banks, and against bank bankruptcy. No wonder he's against Bitcoin.