Tags: inflation

Kicking the Can Down the Road 101

Editor’s Note – Even the mainstream press is coming to the realization that there is no fixing the Eurozone’s debt problems; just postponing the inevitable.

BRUSSELS (AP) – Under pressure to deliver shock treatment to the ailing euro, European finance ministers failed to come up with a plan for European countries to spend within their means. Such a plan is needed before Europe’s central bank and the International Monetary Fund consider stepping in to stem an escalating threat to the global economy.

The ministers delayed action on major financial issues – such as the concept of a closer fiscal union that would guarantee more budgetary discipline – until their bosses meet next week in Brussels.

Stock markets fell Wednesday as a top EU official conceded that the future of the euro now rests heavily on the meeting of European heads of state on Dec. 9. Stock markets had risen this week on hopes that intense bond market pressure would finally force the eurozone into quicker and more robust action.

“We are now entering the critical period of 10 days to complete and conclude the crisis response of the European Union,” EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn said, adding: “There is no one single silver bullet that will get us out of this crisis.”

At a meeting Tuesday night, finance ministers for the 17 countries that use the euro handed Greece a promised euro8 billion ($10.7 billion) rescue loan to fend off its immediate cash crisis and promised to increase the firepower of a fund to help bail out ailing eurozone countries.

But they failed to increase the firepower of a European bailout fund to euro1 trillion ($1.3 trillion), as they had hoped to do.

“It will be very difficult to reach something in the region of a trillion. Maybe half of that,” said Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager.

Klaus Regling, head of the bailout fund, tried to be upbeat, saying the ministers had committed to increasing its size from its current euro440 billion ($587 billion) but refusing to give a specific size. He assured reporters it was more than big enough to deal with Europe’s immediate debt problems.

“To be clear, we do not expect investors to commit large amounts of money during the next few days or weeks,” Regling said. “Leverage is a process over time.”

The ministers did agree to use the bailout fund to offer financial protection of 20-30 percent to investors who buy new bonds from troubled eurozone nations.

“We made important progress on a number of fronts,” eurozone chief Jean-Claude Juncker insisted late Tuesday. “This shows our complete determination to do whatever it takes to safeguard the financial stability of the euro.”

Wednesday’s meeting in Brussels has brought in the 10 non-euro finance ministers from the 27-nation EU, who have been pressing hard for a swift solution for fear that their economies will suffer.

Sweden’s Anders Borg said there was no more time to waste and that the markets don’t provide “any honeymoons” for any countries that stray from fiscal austerity. He stressed that Spain and Italy need to “take out all the skeletons” from their financial closets and implement budgetary belt tightening measures.

Many economists say the 17 nations that use the euro have little choice but to back proposals for much closer coordination of their spending and budget policies.

Though such a change would reduce their ability to run budget deficits, it could potentially pave the way for much more aggressive support from the European Central Bank.

“If the eurozone is to survive, there needs to be more fiscal union,” said Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University in the state of New York.

For struggling economies, this might be the necessary price of survival. With such discipline in place, the ECB could then agree to make major purchases of government bonds from Europe’s troubled countries. Doing so could help lower their borrowing costs and enable them to finance their debts.

For now, the ECB has been reluctant to take such a frontline role, arguing that it’s up to governments to sort out their fiscal mess. It’s voiced worries that a big bond-buying program could allow economically reckless countries off the hook for painful spending cuts and tax increases.

But a tighter fiscal union could reassure the ECB and lead it to act more forcefully, said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The alternative could be a default by Greece, or even Italy, and a break-up of the eurozone. That could spark chaos, forcing some or all the countries to return to their own individual currencies.

A default could also cause lending to seize up worldwide. Some European banks holding large amounts of government debt would likely collapse. As credit dried up, other banks around the world would probably hoard cash. The credit crunch could push European countries into a deep recession.

A European downturn would also slow the flow of exports to Europe from the United States and Asia and weaken their economies. U.S. stock markets would likely fall, reducing household wealth and consumer spending and further choking growth.

Many economists say the threat of default means the International Monetary Fund might end up contributing to a bailout fund. An IMF spokesman denied Tuesday that the international lending group is consulting with the Italian or Spanish governments.

But the IMF could work with institutions like the ECB, Cornell’s Prasad said. Funneling money through the IMF would be more politically palatable for the ECB than directly aiding individual countries.

Still, the IMF has only about $390 billion available to lend. That wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to rescue Italy, which has $1.2 trillion in debt.

“In the short term, there is only the ECB,” Kirkegaard said.

TWIST & Shout – Andy Sutton

The mainstream media is abuzz this morning, Wednesday September 21st, about the federal reserve, who is once again plotting to save the USEconomy from certain disaster. Really, haven’t we heard this many times before? If it was that easy, shouldn’t it have been done a few years ago when all the problems started? If that is the case, we’ve got little more than a bunch of incompetent bankers on our hands. That is bad enough. However, I think most people are starting to understand that it is much worse a problem than just plain vanilla incompetence. It is about collusion and corruption and I am being very generous in that assessment.

The Latest Ploy

The fed is expected to announce this week that it is going to reach back 50 years into its bag of tricks and pull out some manipulations that will save us. This latest cockamamie scheme is to shift its $1.7 Trillion in short term USBond holdings (monetized debt) to longer-term holdings in an effort to drive down the long end of the yield curve even further. Apparently, the current monetization efforts haven’t been good enough. They have been driving the long end down for three years now, either directly through direct rate intervention or by subsidies aimed at the end products resulting from those rates such as mortgages.

The obvious rationale is that driving down rates on debt will rescue the economy, since people will be able to take on even more debt to spend more money on more imported trinkets from China and elsewhere. Again, haven’t we heard this before? We still haven’t really felt the full impact from the last raft of malfeasance when the fed went on an overt $600 Billion bond-buying spree. For those who haven’t yet connected the dots, that is called monetization of debt. A very inflationary measure. The dollar has paid the price. Don’t be fooled by the ridiculous assertions that the dollar is ‘stronger’ because the dollar index has gone up. The only reason that has happened at all is because Europe is on the brink of total collapse and disintegration. There is no way anyone can conduct a sane examination of the dollar’s fundamentals and conclude there is anything that represents ‘strength’ at this point. At best it is status quo and the capitalization of another’s even more dire circumstances.

On the surface, all this might look very appealing. Lower interest rates across the board. Sure, there will be another wave of refinancing of mortgages. If you can qualify. If you’re not underwater. Maybe. The subsidies aimed at the housing market so far have been an absolute and total failure. That dog won’t hunt anymore. Game over for real estate for at least a decade. So as usual, we’re left to ask Cui bono? Who benefits. Well the bankers of course. The fed dropped short-term rates into the basement in 2008 and has held the hammer down. This punished savers around the country. All those baby boomers who are retired/retiring (maybe) are going to need income from their meager savings to make up for the rising prices that have resulted from the fed’s malfeasance and lack of stewardship of the dollar. They won’t get much in the way of income from traditional low-risk investment vehicles, that is for sure. The proverbial ‘riskless’ asset pays nothing after taxes. Nothing. And it isn’t riskless. Put it another way – would you be willing to give the USGovt a loan for 90 days? 180? 10 years? How about 30 years? At maybe 2.5% per annum? That is a foolish proposition on even the best of days. The savers get creamed again. Bernanke is so worried about the economy, but yet he’ll purposefully and deliberately undertake policies that will gut the one component of the economy that is capable of spurring growth – savers. And this is not the first time either. And he is not the first guy to do it. This has been a pattern for quite a long time now.

The All-Important Question – Cui Bono?

So who benefits again? The banks, obviously. The lower the yield curve, the higher the spread, the higher the profit margin. All actions done so far have been to protect and enrich the banks and their precious financial system – all at the expense of the economy and all done intentionally, in my opinion, with malice and aforethought. Just think back to TARP, TALF, TSLF, and the other multi-trillion dollar rescue packages. Think about the $500 billion (minimum) in swaps done between the fed and the ECB in 2008-09 that Bernanke was grilled on and claimed not to know the recipients thereof. Think about the latest harebrained stunt aimed at saving European banks. More unlimited dollar bailouts for foreign banks. More protection of the financial oligarchy. More inflation. Less purchasing power for the dollar. More pain for consumers. Less economic growth.

At the bottom of this issue is that the Keynesian way is still in full force, which guarantees that things will not get any better. Two of the biggest pillars of the Keynesian way are to punish savers because saving is a bad activity – all monies should be spent on consumption to maximize current ‘growth’. Never mind future growth; all actions are to be geared towards the short run. The second big pillar is deficit spending and debt accumulation at all levels of the economy. Again, forget about the long-term consequences. All focus is dedicated to the short run. That is the Keynesian way in a nutshell.

The Consequences

We’re already seeing firsthand the catastrophic failure of that policy pathway in Europe. It is an unmitigated disaster. We’ll reap the full whirlwind here in America before too long. Instead of focusing on debt reduction across the board, the central planners, our new economic politburo, are undertaking policies that will accelerate debt accumulation at all levels. Consumers are back on the credit card big time as unemployment remains high and people are forced to continue borrowing to make ends meet. They were in over their heads to begin with and now for many, there is no way out. The house is underwater. The job is gone. The unemployment check isn’t enough and it is going to run out soon anyway. These people end up running full speed to the bankers who are more than willing to accommodate with rates of usury that would make the mafia blush.

The ‘cuts’ that are forthcoming from our new unconstitutional ‘super congress’ will almost certainly be from social programs, not the sacred cows such as the Pentagon budget, bank bailout monies, or subsidies paid for keeping jobs out of America. The lobbyists have already guaranteed that. I’ll say it again – the American people are the only ones who don’t have someone lobbying for them to the members of that ill-conceived and very illegal group. It is terribly ironic that the one group who is going to bear the full burden of all of this does not even have one representative in the process. We know what Jefferson said about that. If we don’t, then shame on us for not knowing our history.

The bottom line is that our debt is already unpayable. Our bonds are junk. Our country is several orders of magnitude deeper into this mess than Greece. According to Laurence Kotlikoff, the net present value of our obligations relative to GDP is 14 times greater. Greece’s multiple is only 12. Yet we had people surprised when our debt rating was cut by one single notch. It was an affront to our perception of American superiority. That is gone, people. We’ve allowed it to be squandered – all for the satisfaction of short-run desires and an economic philosophy that was brought into the world in the worst possible manner: half improvised, half compromised. The policymakers of the day provided the compromise; Keynes was more than happy to provide the rest. In a way, he got off easy; his demise came long before that of a world that decided to throw away prudence in pursuit of his unattainable utopia.

Debt Ceiling or QE3? – by Andy Sutton

With the debt deal now signed and the crisis proclaimed to be over by the government and the mainstream lapdog media, it is time to take a serious look at the debauchery that was just perpetrated on the American people – again. The names have barely changed from 2008. The tactics certainly haven’t.  The magic of government accounting has had another chapter added to it as something that actually adds to the deficit and requires money be borrowed on its behalf is now a ‘cut’. Isn’t that just special? There are several big myths about the past few weeks that we need to uncover before anyone is really going to understand what is really going on here.

QE3 in Disguise

QE2 was winding down and when you go back and look at it, the USFed had already been blamed (quite properly too) for record high food prices around the globe and some of the unrest in certain locales as well. The overt monetization stage is generally the last one in the fiat life cycle, and obviously it is in Bernanke et al’s best interests to prolong the fleecing, er, rather prosperity, as long as they possibly can. The debt ceiling non-issue was really a work of semi-genius when you think about it. Set an artificial date for the end of the world, get your buddies in the media to put countdown clocks all over their news broadcasts – really a nice touch guys, and then proceed to scare the daylights out of everyone that those checks might not go out if everyone doesn’t get together and take one for the banksters. Uh, the team. So what really happened on 8/2 anyway? Well, I will tell you. QE3 was born. Come again? Here’s the stick. The consumer is now in pullback mode – again. The government is up against the wall with the full light of day being shown on its foolishness. The only institution with any wiggle room is the fed.

I have gotten confirmation from several well-placed sources that the USFed is now buying nearly 80% of all new Treasury bond issues. Most of these are being purchased directly from the primary dealers, who are required to place bids at all auctions. This is one of the reasons why it seems everyone around the world is divesting; yet the Treasury always has plenty of buyers for new debt. Pension funds and other mutual/closed-end funds are good for most of the rest. So follow the logic. The USFed needs cover to launch another round of monetary stimulus even though the first two were an abysmal failure. The USGovt needs to be able to issue a trainload of bonds to make payments on a bunch of ill-advised promises. The best bet at this point would be to borrow enough to divest everyone from SocSec at a 4% per annum rate and opt everyone out and shut the system down. People could invest their own money accordingly and at least if they blow it, it would be on them. And here’s the carrot: we get a debt ceiling extension for $2.8 trillion-ish and this gives the government the ability to borrow and spend while giving the Fed cover for the next round of semi-overt monetary stimulus. The mechanisms may be slightly different, but this one will likely mimic QE1 and 2 in most ways. The fed will be monetizing debt and the government will be spending more of its borrowed money to try to stimulate an economy, and, more and more lately, appears to be beyond stimulation. It would appear that we’ve now reached the phase in Keynes ‘theory’ where the long run is upon us and we’re not dead so now what? Unfortunately, Keynes left us no answers because there weren’t any and he knew it. This may come as a shock to many Keynes proselytizers, but we’re in uncharted territory, with not even the basis of a clue as to how to right this ship. So what we can expect moving forward is more of the same. The ‘cuts’ in this debt deal, from what I’ve been able to see so far, are going to gut the middle two quartiles of the economy. Not at once or immediately, but slowly. Many of the prescribed cuts won’t happen for a while, but others are yet unknown. The ‘super congress’ will have frighteningly dictatorial powers in deciding the winners and the losers and obviously there will be fierce battles by industries, corporations, banks, and pretty much everyone with a lobbyist – except the American people – to get people sympathetic to their cause on that commission. Go figure that 300 million Americans have not one single suite on K Street. Not even a single kiosk. Nothing.

Priming Demand for GBonds

On cue, USEquity markets have deteriorated over the past several weeks, pushing investor money across the aisle into Treasuries. I have made the case both anecdotally and factually in our paid publication for almost 2 years that the small investor is largely out of markets. Much of Middle America’s investments are in managed plans such as 401s, pension plans, and the like. Funds and banks have been driving the markets for quite some time now, shaving pennies off each other each day, with everyone claiming victory at the end of the quarter. I’ve chronicled how several firms have bragged on quarter long winning streaks. When you look at all the information, it becomes very clear that the big banks are running that show now more than ever. So why the recent selloff?  There are a couple of reasons really, and the first is the easiest to understand. The general public, for the most part, regards the stock market as the economy itself. Running down the markets was one way of making the fear campaign launched by Washington stick. Thanks to subterfuge and disinformation, Main Street really doesn’t understand most of the economic reporting other than unemployment, and perhaps GDP, but it certainly understands the stock market.  Dropping the markets was part of the psyop against the American people over the past several weeks. Secondly, there is typically a flow from more risky to less risky assets. Let me be clear that I preface both of those qualifiers with ‘perceived’. Perceived increased risk in the equity markets will push money into bonds and vice versa. That has been a basic paradigm for many years now and is fairly well understood by most investors. That paradigm is going to be ending in the not-too-distant future, but that is another article for another week.

The mere fact that so much money is piling into the long end of the yield curve reeks of manipulation since it simply defies common sense. A stay of execution is not a pardon, and the ridiculous spending spree in Washington will continue, albeit, most likely to a lesser extent in Middle America’s direction. There will be plenty of money for wars, regulation, and plenty of money for the next bailout when the banksters get zapped (most likely by design) by the derivatives time bomb they’ve created on a global scale. Nothing has been done to alter the trillions that SocSec and Medicare pass onto the nation’s plate in terms of unfunded liabilities each year. Perhaps the plan is simply to make the liabilities go away, and then there will be no need for funding. The supercongress could easily have that as its mandate. It will not be comprised of Ron and Rand Paul types, that is for sure, or even main line fiscal conservatives. Or advocates for the people. I wouldn’t be surprised if General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt wasn’t given a spot despite the fact that he isn’t even a Congressman.

Gold Smells the Rat(s)

In short, the run-up of the bond market is to push the perception that US government bonds are safe. There is likely a minor residual effect from the ongoing (and worsening) crisis in Europe, which is spreading well beyond Greece. Gold is properly responding to the debt and derivatives mess globally. At this point, it is one of the few markets that is ‘working’ yet the mainstream press calls the rally ‘ludicrous’.  And make no mistake, the roiling of markets is just as much about derivatives as anything else. Remember all the credit default swaps that were written on junk US mortgages? There are plenty of those written against various European (and American) government bonds, banks, and pretty much anything else that isn’t bolted down. And the nature of the derivatives time bomb is such that it will not matter where it begins, once the avalanche starts, it will take the entire financial system with it. That is the magnitude of the greed that has been poured into this rather unknown and virtually unregulated arena.

Ratings Russian Roulette

Another benefit to pushing up the bond market is to cover what declines may occur if a ratings agency actually does something other than talk about downgrading USGovt bonds. At this point at least it would appear to be a rather safe bet that this will not happen. Moody’s has already affirmed the top rating while saying everything negative they possible can in a vain attempt to save face. These agencies are merely political animals, serving the masters who pay their exorbitant fees. Nothing more. They are not independent by any stretch, because as anyone can understand, your allegiance is to who pays you. When a bank pays the agency to rate its mortgage tranches, the rating agency has a choice. Make the rating pleasing to the customer or lose the business. It is very simple. Amazingly the agencies essentially admit this, claiming their sovereign ratings are ‘more independent’. More independent than what? Than the AAA ratings slapped on C mortgage tranches?

If the Eurozone nations want the ratings agencies to stop arbitrarily and capriciously downgrading them, then they’d better take some of that rescue fund and send a large check. That is what appears to work best with these firms – a large application of money. There is also a little talked about motivator in there for the ratings agencies to keep the USGovt’s rating sterling. If they cut it that could very well mean that fewer bonds will be issued, and therefore diminished demand for ratings. When in doubt, always, always, follow the money.

There was certainly a lot of borrowed money to be followed today as the debt curve resumed its relentless upward climb to oblivion and the loss of the American standard of living we’ve come to enjoy. Meanwhile, awful economic reports continue to flow out of the various reporting agencies and if nothing else, maybe this time folks will come to understand you just can’t put humpty dumpty back together with endless monetary and fiscal stimulus; it is truly the ultimate exercise in financial futility.

If you haven’t taken an opportunity to download our free report entitled ‘If You Have Paper Assets… There are Three Things You Must Consider’, think about doing so now. As debt contagion swirls in Europe and now on our shores, it is more important than ever to take a protective stance towards the entirety of your assets. Simply Click Here to go to the download page. No obligations, no hassles, just common sense investing wisdom. There are also several other compilations available by clicking the above link as well.

Why We’re in This Mess

The first shows the declining value of the dollar…. So much for the Fed mandate of price stability..

The Dollar's value: down the drain

The second shows what happens to your debt when you decide to become a consumer nation as opposed to a producer one and pay for it all with borrowed money.

The Cost of Consumerism

Hedge Farm – Inflationary Expectations are Turning Fund Managers into Survivalists

Editor’s Note – And the Observer only scratched the surface in this conversation regarding the reasons to expect higher food prices.

On the rare occasion that New Yorkers talk about farming, it’s usually something along the lines of what sort of organic kale to plant in the vanity garden at the second house in the Adirondacks. But on a recent afternoon, The Observer had a conversation of a different sort about agricultural pursuits with a hedge fund manager he’d met at one of the many dark-paneled private clubs in midtown a few weeks prior. “A friend of mine is actually the largest owner of agricultural land in Uruguay,” said the hedge fund manager. “He’s a year older than I am. We’re somewhere [around] the 15th-largest farmers in America right now.”

“We,” as in, his hedge fund.

It may seem a little odd that in 2011 anyone’s thinking of putting money into assets that would have seemed attractive in 1911, but there’s something in the air-namely, fear. The hedge fund manager and others like him envision a doomsday scenario catalyzed by a weak dollar, higher-than-you-think inflation and an uncertain political climate here and abroad.

The pattern began to emerge sometime in 2008. “The Hedge Fund Manager Who Bought a Farm,” read the headline on one February 2008 Times of London piece detailing a British hedge fund manager’s attempt to play off the rising prices of grains in order to usurp local farmland. A Financial Times piece two months later began: “Hedge funds and investment banks are swapping their Gucci for gumboots.” It detailed BlackRock’s then-relatively new $420 million Agriculture Fund, which had already swept up 2,800 acres of land.

Even Michael Burry, the now-defunct Scion Capital founder and star protagonist of Michael Lewis’ The Big Short-who bet against the housing bubble in 2008 with credit default swaps to enormous profit-gave a rare interview on Bloomberg TV last year, explaining that he’s thrown his hat into “productive agriculture land with water on site” as it’s going to be “very valuable in the future.” (Like most of those asked to comment for this story to The Observer, Burry declined to discuss his investments in farmland.)

Three years later, the purchase of farmland both in America and abroad by outside investors has increased-so much so that in February, Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, warned against the violent possibilities of a farmland bubble, telling the Senate Agriculture Committee that “distortions in financial markets” will catch the U.S. by surprise again. He would know, because he’s seeing it in his backyard: Kansas and Nebraska reported farmland prices 20 percent above the previous year’s levels and are on pace to double values in four years. A study commissioned by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and released in January estimated the amount of private capital currently committed to farmland and agricultural infrastructure at $14 billion. It also estimated that future investments will “dwarf” what’s currently being thrown into land, by two to three times. Further down, the study makes a conservative projection that the amount of capital potentially entering the sector over the next decade will fly past $150 billion.

When asked if this is an end of the world scenario, the hedge-fund manager replied, “It really is. I tell my fiancée this from time to time, and I’ve stopped telling her this, because it’s not the most pleasant thought.’

This is happening in part because investors see their play as a hedge against hyperinflation. While the rest of the world uses the current calculation of the Consumer Price Index as a proxy for the cost of goods, some farmland investors are using a different equation, one from 1980. These investors assert inflation should be calculated the way it was before the Boskin Commission’s 1996 reworking of the CPI formula-in which case, it would be much, much higher.

“The CPI supposedly today is something like 1.5 percent,” says the hedge fund manager. “We think the actual rate of inflation is something closer to 6 or 7 percent on an annual basis. It’s also not about what it’s been over the last 10 years; it’s about what it’s going to be over the next 10 years.”

So the logic is that not only is the dollar worth far less than we think it is, but everything is more expensive and will only move further in that direction. Especially food, the value of which may have risen due to population increases, especially in places like China, where a consumer-happy middle class has finally started to emerge.

The rising cost of food can be seen even in New York’s yuppiest enclaves, where prices are high to begin with. Bloomberg food critic Ryan Sutton has been running a blog called The Price Hike wherein he measures the shifting costs of food at the plate in Manhattan restaurants. Mario Batali’s Del Posto is charging 21 percent more per meal since October. Gordon Ramsay at The London? Sixty-nine percent more since last month. Michelin favorite Bouley? Forty percent. The Breslin, at the Ace Hotel? Thirty-three percent. And so on.

But farmland isn’t an option for most investors. Farming is still mostly made up of family-run businesses, in the U.S., at least. Much of the farmland being purchased in America is purchased at estate sales. Pure-play farming isn’t a readily available product.

You can invest in John Deere for equipment; you can invest in Monsanto for seeds and agricultural tech. You can even invest in Kraft, which puts the plants on the supermarket shelf. But for now, it’s difficult to invest in a one-stop-shop farm. Additionally, there isn’t much arable land out there, it’s not increasing, and the quality of the land varies from parcel to parcel. And to make money off a farmland investment, you can’t just sit on it. You have to know what to do with it. “If you farm it like we do, you can generate a yield,” says the hedge fund manager. “We think the farmland will be worth 5 to 10 percent more every year, and on top of that, you get the commodities yield.” In other words, hedge funds are growing, picking and selling corn.

Asked if the American public would eventually see a chance to invest in Old McHedgeFund’s farm one day, the manager replied in the affirmative:  “Yes. Without a doubt.” He estimated it would be only a few years before this happened. Just two weeks ago, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that El Tejar SA, the world’s largest grain producer, is planning on selling $300 million of bonds this year before a planned IPO. The plans for the IPO will be fast-tracked pending the sale of the bonds. If farming IPOs begin to emerge en masse, then farming-already often a dicey proposition simply on the basis of its being difficult to do correctly, the volatility of the weather and the possibility of entire crops going bad-may be vulnerable to a bubble.

There is, of course, a slightly more sinister reason to develop a sudden interest in agriculture. Last year, Marc Faber recommended to anyone: “Stock up on a farm in northern Norway and learn to drive a tractor.” He sees a “dirty war” on the horizon, playing on fears of a biological attack poisoning food supplies. Those sort of fears drive capital into everything from gold (recently at an all-time high and a long-time safe haven for investors with currency concerns) to survivalist accoutrements. In this particular case, one might buy the farm in order to avoid buying the farm.

That may seem extreme, but even the lesser scenarios are frightening to some. When asked if this is an end-of-the-world situation, the hedge fund manager replied: “It really is. I tell my fiancée this from time to time, and I’ve stopped telling her this, because it’s not the most pleasant thought.” He pauses for a moment. “We just can’t keep living the way we’re living. It’ll end within our lifetime. We’re just going to run out of certain things. We’ll just have to learn how to adjust.”

Forbes Predicts Return to Gold Standard Within 5 Years

Published on: 05/11/2011
Comments: No Comments

A return to the gold standard by the United States within the next five years now seems likely, because that move would help the nation solve a variety of economic, fiscal, and monetary ills, Steve Forbes predicted during an exclusive interview this week with HUMAN EVENTS.

“What seems astonishing today could become conventional wisdom in a short period of time,” Forbes said.

Such a move would help to stabilize the value of the dollar, restore confidence among foreign investors in U.S. government bonds, and discourage reckless federal spending, the media mogul and former presidential candidate said.  The United States used gold as the basis for valuing the U.S. dollar successfully for roughly 180 years before President Richard Nixon embarked upon an experiment to end the practice in the 1970s that has contributed to a number of woes that the country is suffering from now, Forbes added.

If the gold standard had been in place in recent years, the value of the U.S. dollar would not have weakened as it has and excessive federal spending would have been curbed, Forbes told HUMAN EVENTS.  The constantly changing value of the U.S. dollar leads to marketplace uncertainty and consequently spurs speculation in commodity investing as a hedge against inflation.

The only probable 2012 U.S. presidential candidate who has championed a return to the gold standard so far is Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Tex.).  But the idea “makes too much sense” not to gain popularity as the U.S. economy struggles to create jobs, recover from a housing bubble induced by the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies, stop rising gasoline prices, and restore fiscal responsibility to U.S. government’s budget, Forbes insisted.

With a stable currency, it is “much harder” for governments to borrow excessively, Forbes said.  Without lax Federal Reserve System monetary policies that led to the printing of too much money, the housing bubble would not have been nearly as severe, he added.

“When it comes to exchange rates and monetary policy, people often don’t grasp” what is at stake for the economy, Forbes said.  By restoring the gold standard, the United States would shift away from “less responsible policies” and toward a stronger dollar and a stronger America, he said.  “If the dollar was as good as gold, other countries would want to buy it.”

An encouraging sign for Forbes is that key lawmakers besides Rep. Paul are recognizing that the Fed is straying well beyond its intended role of promoting stable prices and full employment with its monetary policies.

Forbes cited Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.), who, he believes, understands monetary policy better than most lawmakers and has shown a willingness to ask tough but necessary questions.  For example, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before the House Budget Committee in February, Ryan, who chairs the panel, asked Bernanke bluntly how many jobs the Fed’s quantitative-easing program had helped to create.

Politicians need to “get over” the notion that the Fed can guide the economy with monetary policy.  The Fed is like a “bull in a China shop,” Forbes said.  “It can’t help but knock things down.”

“People know that something is wrong with the dollar,” Forbes concluded.  “You cannot trash your money without repercussions.”

Walmart’s Core Shoppers ‘Running Out of Money’

Editor’s Note: But the media pundits, government and bankers all say the economy is good. We are beginning to see just the leading edge of the complete bifurcation of the USEconomy: into the haves (about 5%) and the have nots (95%). Think you’ll end up in the 5%? Think again.

Wal-Mart’s core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago due to rising gasoline prices, and the retail giant is worried, CEO Mike Duke said Wednesday.

“We’re seeing core consumers under a lot of pressure,” Duke said at an event in New York. “There’s no doubt that rising fuel prices are having an impact.”

Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.

Lately, they’re “running out of money” at a faster clip, he said.

“Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year,” Duke said. “This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern.

Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), which averages 140 million shoppers weekly to its stores in the United States, is considered a barometer of the health of the consumer and the economy.

To that end, Duke said he’s not seeing signs of a recovery yet.

With food prices rising, Duke said Wal-Mart is charging customers more for some fresh groceries while reducing prices on other merchandise such as electronics.

Wal-Mart has struggled with seven straight quarters of sales declines in its stores.

Addressing that challenge, Duke said the company made mistakes by shrinking product variety and not being more aggressive on prices compared to its competitors.

“What’s made Wal-Mart great over the decades is ‘every day low prices’ and our [product] assortment,” he said. “We got away from it.”

Now, with its strategy of low prices all the time back in place, Duke said making Wal-Mart a “one-stop shopping stop” is a critical response to dealing with the rising price of fuel.

Americans don’t have the luxury of driving all over town to do their shopping.

Other than competing on prices and products, Duke said Wal-Mart is focused on leveraging technology — especially social networking — more aggressively to drive sales.

“Social networking is much more a part of the purchasing decision,” he said. “Consumers are communicating with each other on Facebook about how they spend their money and what they’re buying.”

Elsewhere, Duke said Wal-Mart is exploring a number of e-commerce initiatives to grow the business such as testing an online groceries delivery business in San Jose. To top of page

Traders Preparing for $175 Oil

Oil at $175 a barrel; copper at $12,000 a tonne and corn at $10 a bushel. As commodity prices rally, the world’s largest trading houses have been busy ‘stress testing’ to be sure their finances can withstand a “super spike”.

The levels are not a forecast – indeed, executives tell me they do not expect such hefty prices – but do signal a “worse case scenario” for which oil, metals and food commodities traders need to prepare.

“Can we reach $175? I don’t think so,” says a trading executive. “But there is a chance of a spike to that level for one or two days if something happens in Saudi Arabia.” The same reasoning justifies tests for copper at $12,000 a tonne (think of an accident at a big mine in Chile) or corn at $10 a bushel, which could, for example, be caused by bad weather during the US planting season in May and June.

The stress tests have become more common at the physical trading houses in London, Geneva and Singapore. There is reason for it. Contrary to popular wisdom, high commodities prices are bad for pure traders: they consume lots of capital as houses need to finance their cargoes and post more collateral with exchanges for their hedges, leading to a decline in returns.

Take oil: when prices were around $50 a barrel in 2009, traders needed just $100m of capital to finance a supertanker. At current prices, they need about $250m. Not surprisingly, trading houses are now on the capital market raising multibillion dollar one- year and three-year credit lines.

Some traders are also tapping the public bond market – Trafigura did last year – while others are turning to private placements in the US.

A banker who works closely with some of the world’s largest trading houses jokes that money, rather than oil, copper or corn, is the commodity in shorter supply. Of course, it is an exaggeration: the banks’ appetite to finance the houses is very strong and traders are raising money with little trouble. But the comment holds some truth: traders will need lots of credit this year.

I do not expect that any trading house will run into trouble: the rollercoaster market of 2008 cleared the market of the small players unable to compete because of lack of credit. Traders have also learnt from the experience, with more standby lines with banks.

Moreover, the more vulnerable smaller players that rely on “transactional finance” are protected. Yes, they need more credit, but the value of the commodities they move and that they pledge as collateral has also increased, offsetting the blow.

Nonetheless, trading executives say they are thinking twice about some trades and acknowledge that what was profitable a few months ago on the basis of risk-adjusted return on capital is no longer worthwhile because of higher credit needs.

All in all, the rise in commodities will make the life of chief financial officers and treasurers at the trading houses more difficult. With banks happy to continue lending and credit still cheap, traders will be able to weather the storm. But if access to credit gets tighter, the smaller players, which have been able to grow rapidly over the past five years, will end up as the prey of larger, well financed rivals.

Walmart CEO Warns of ‘Serious’ Inflation

U.S. consumers face “serious” inflation in the months ahead for clothing, food and other products, the head of Wal-Mart’s U.S. operations warned Wednesday.

  • The nation's largest retailer needs to get back to its roots as the lowest priced one-stop shop for consumers, Walmart CEO Bill SImon said. By Spencer Platt, Getty Images

    The nation’s largest retailer needs to get back to its roots as the lowest priced one-stop shop for consumers, Walmart CEO Bill SImon said.

By Spencer Platt, Getty Images

The nation’s largest retailer needs to get back to its roots as the lowest priced one-stop shop for consumers, Walmart CEO Bill SImon said.

The world’s largest retailer is working with suppliers to minimize the effect of cost increases and believes its low-cost business model will position it better than its competitors.

Still, inflation is “going to be serious,” Wal-Mart U.S. CEO Bill Simon said during a meeting with USA TODAY’s editorial board. “We’re seeing cost increases starting to come through at a pretty rapid rate.”

Along with steep increases in raw material costs, John Long, a retail strategist at Kurt Salmon, says labor costs in China and fuel costs for transportation are weighing heavily on retailers. He predicts prices will start increasing at all retailers in June.

“Every single retailer has and is paying more for the items they sell, and retailers will be passing some of these costs along,” Long says. “Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven’t seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory.”

Consumer prices — or the consumer price index — rose 0.5% in February, the most since mid-2009, largely because of surging food and gasoline prices. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose a more modest 0.2%, though that still exceeded estimates.

The scenario hits Wal-Mart as it is trying to return to the low across-the-board prices it became famous for. Some prices rose as the company paid for costly store renovations.

“We’re in a position to use scale to hold prices lower longer … even in an inflationary environment,” Simon says. “We will have the lowest prices in the market.”

Major retailers such as Wal-Mart are the best positioned to mitigate some cost increases, Long says. Wal-Mart, for example, could have “access to any factory in any country around the globe” to mitigate the effect of inflation in the U.S., Long says.

Still, “it’s certainly going to have an impact,” Long says. “No retailer is going to be able to wish this new cost reality away. They’re not going to be able to insulate the consumer 100%.”

Food Inflation Hidden in Smaller Packages

Editor’s Note: This has been going on for a LONG time now. It is interesting that it is finally getting some attention. This is another way that the BLS can fudge the CPI numbers too. They don’t take into account the unit cost, just the total cost. It never ends.

As an expected increase in the cost of raw materials looms for late summer, consumers are beginning to encounter shrinking food packages.

With unemployment still high, companies in recent months have tried to camouflage price increases by selling their products in tiny and tinier packages. So far, the changes are most visible at the grocery store, where shoppers are paying the same amount, but getting less.

For Lisa Stauber, stretching her budget to feed her nine children in Houston often requires careful monitoring at the store. Recently, when she cooked her usual three boxes of pasta for a big family dinner, she was surprised by a smaller yield, and she began to suspect something was up.

“Whole wheat pasta had gone from 16 ounces to 13.25 ounces,” she said. “I bought three boxes and it wasn’t enough — that was a little embarrassing. I bought the same amount I always buy, I just didn’t realize it, because who reads the sizes all the time?”

Ms. Stauber, 33, said she began inspecting her other purchases, aisle by aisle. Many canned vegetables dropped to 13 or 14 ounces from 16; boxes of baby wipes went to 72 from 80; and sugar was stacked in 4-pound, not 5-pound, bags, she said.

Five or so years ago, Ms. Stauber bought 16-ounce cans of corn. Then they were 15.5 ounces, then 14.5 ounces, and the size is still dropping. “The first time I’ve ever seen an 11-ounce can of corn at the store was about three weeks ago, and I was just floored,” she said. “It’s sneaky, because they figure people won’t know.”

In every economic downturn in the last few decades, companies have reduced the size of some products, disguising price increases and avoiding comparisons on same-size packages, before and after an increase. Each time, the marketing campaigns are coy; this time, the smaller versions are “greener” (packages good for the environment) or more “portable” (little carry bags for the takeout lifestyle) or “healthier” (fewer calories).

Where companies cannot change sizes — as in clothing or appliances — they have warned that prices will be going up, as the costs of cotton, energy, grain and other raw materials are rising.

“Consumers are generally more sensitive to changes in prices than to changes in quantity,” John T. Gourville, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, said. “And companies try to do it in such a way that you don’t notice, maybe keeping the height and width the same, but changing the depth so the silhouette of the package on the shelf looks the same. Or sometimes they add more air to the chips bag or a scoop in the bottom of the peanut butter jar so it looks the same size.”

Thomas J. Alexander, a finance professor at Northwood University, said that businesses had little choice these days when faced with increases in the costs of their raw goods. “Companies only have pricing power when wages are also increasing, and we’re not seeing that right now because of the high unemployment,” he said.

Most companies reduce products quietly, hoping consumers are not reading labels too closely.

But the downsizing keeps occurring. A can of Chicken of the Sea albacore tuna is now packed at 5 ounces, instead of the 6-ounce version still on some shelves, and in some cases, the 5-ounce can costs more than the larger one. Bags of Doritos, Tostitos and Fritos now hold 20 percent fewer chips than in 2009, though a spokesman said those extra chips were just a “limited time” offer.

Trying to keep customers from feeling cheated, some companies are introducing new containers that, they say, have terrific advantages — and just happen to contain less product.

Kraft is introducing “Fresh Stacks” packages for its Nabisco Premium saltines and Honey Maid graham crackers. Each has about 15 percent fewer crackers than the standard boxes, but the price has not changed. Kraft says that because the Fresh Stacks include more sleeves of crackers, they are more portable and “the packaging format offers the benefit of added freshness,” said Basil T. Maglaris, a Kraft spokesman, in an e-mail.

And Procter & Gamble is expanding its “Future Friendly” products, which it promotes as using at least 15 percent less energy, water or packaging than the standard ones.

“They are more environmentally friendly, that’s true — but they’re also smaller,” said Paula Rosenblum, managing partner for retail systems research at Focus.com, an online specialist network. “They announce it as great new packaging, and in fact what it is is smaller packaging, smaller amounts of the product,” she said.

page 1 of 9 »

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012