POLITICS & ECONOMICS

The exciting news this week was that the U.S. economy is not actually in crisis. That’s right, it turns out the economy grew a healthy 3.3% y-o-y in the second quarter (not 1.9%, as previously estimated). Strong export growth and private inventories were behind the acceleration, said the Commerce Department.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, Dan Amoss warns us that GDP data isn’t always a good indicator of economic progress.

Besides, Chuck Butler says this outturn is just a ‘blip on the recession chart’. Firstly, the desperate government resorted to handing out checks to stimulate consumption for a month or two.

Then there was the weak dollar making America’s exports cheaper for most of the world. Between April and June, the US dollar index hovered in a range of 71 to 74, barely above its record low of 70.7 set in March. Since then, the index has spiked around 6.5% to reach 77.1 at the close of this week.

Without these twin influences going forward, Charles says growth will be ‘sluggish to nonexistent’. Sure enough, consumer spending stagnated in July, as inflation reached the highest rate for 17 years. Ouch.

Still, U.S. stocks had a day in the sun, as the market decided to take the GDP data at face value. Too bad both the S&P 500 and Dow Jones are down over 12% since the year began.

Of course, it won’t be long until the U.S. economy has a new captain to steer it through these murky waters.

The Republican Party will have its turn next week, but it was the Democrats that threw their party first. The convention was staged in Denver, and Senator Barack Obama officially became the first black presidential candidate. His acceptance speech was a stadium spectacle, and gave him an eight-point lead over rival John McCain in Gallup’s daily poll.

But what will really matter in this year’s election are the candidates’ economic policies. In an effort to shed the “tax and spend” tag, the Obama campaign is focusing on proposed tax relief for America’s middle class. But Martin Hutchinson says tax hikes are a much better alternative to a budget deficit that spirals out of control. Dan Amoss says spending huge sums of money to rescue the economy will just make matters worse going forward.

No matter what the captain does, some icebergs just can’t be avoided.

OIL & ENERGY

Our insatiable thirst for oil and dependence on other countries to supply us with black gold has presented us with great investment opportunities during the energy crisis.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama tells us how he plans to invest in the green collar job movement and focus on wind and alternative energy. Yes, this will create more jobs here in the USA but does he realize that the parts needed for these monsters are made in BRIC nations? Perhaps not, but a well-informed investor could see the opportunity in this while OPEC and Russia tremble at the thought of the USA not depending on them in the near future! See what Byron King has to say here.

And speaking of alternative energy, have you ever stood next to just the base of one of the new model windmills that are going up right now in the Northeastern US? The bases and parts alone occupy so much space you need a lot the size of two football fields just to store the parts.

Andrew Gordon of Investors Daily Edge has his eye on emerging market countries like China and Russia for nuclear energy alternatives. He is bearish on oil majors and is sticking with smaller plays like this oil company from South Africa, called Sasol (NYSE:SSL).

EMERGING MARKETS

At times like these, we wonder what the US government would do for a budget like the Chinese. The spectacular opening ceremony to the Beijing Olympics is said to cost somewhere in the region of $300million. Global media quotes $40 billion as the total cost of the games.

Of course, math isn’t an exact science in China. But the Shanghai Stock Exchange has lost exactly 54.7% of its value in 2008 so far. It seems even the world’s fastest growing large economy is not immune to the global correction, prompting the government to draft a $58 billion economic stimulus package.

Is China a bargain yet? Ian Davis says Chinese stocks are not a screaming buy yet, but will be if the price-to-earnings ratio sinks to 12 (it’s currently as 16). Cris Sholto Heaton says investors should stay clear of exporting firms, which will suffer from a fall in demand from the US and EU. But, he thinks infrastructure companies are well protected from an external slump, and will continue to grow rapidly.

Jim Rogers has no doubts over China’s profit potential. “I have never sold any of my Chinese companies,” he told Money Morning in an exclusive interview. “You know, selling China in 2008 is like selling America in 1908. Sure, let’s say the market goes down another 40% – so what! You look back over 100 years, you look back from the beauty of 1928, or even 1938 [in the depths of the Great Depression], and there is somebody who bought shares in 1908. He was still a lot better off having not sold in 1908.”

Following on from this, William Patalon III gives us six convincing reasons to invest in the Dragon economy here.

US STOCKS

The mob lined up to hurl a few more stones at Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) this week.

Warren Buffett declared “the game was over” for the troubled mortgage financiers. Former IMF-chief Kenneth Rogoff said they should have been closed down 10 years ago. Ratings agency Moody’s slashed its credit scores for both, citing the difficulties they would have in raising new capital.

It is the shareholders that are feeling the sting of these blows. As the trading week closed, Fannie’s stock was down 37%. Freddie had slumped 52%. “Mr. Market has called Henry Paulson’s bluff” says Dan Denning, “…it knows that without direct nationalisation, these government sponsored enterprises won’t last the month“.

So the government is preparing the life support machine. It certainly can’t allow these two giants to die. To do so would be “catastrophic” for the global financial system, according to Yu Yongding, former advisor to China’s Central Bank. Eric Roseman thinks US Treasury bond yields could collapse if the Fed doesn’t intervene soon.

But if something is “too big to fail”, how much does it cost to keep alive? Byron King says this new era of government bailouts will divert hundreds of billions of dollars away from vital infrastructure projects to covering Wall Street’s bad investments.

And who will foot the bill? Why, the humble taxpayer of course…

We hope you have a great Labor Day Weekend!

Share this article with a friend!

Until next weekend,
Contrarian Profits Staff

Marc and Julie

Fannie Mae (FNM:US) plunged 16 percent to $15.74, the lowest price since July 1992. The company and Freddie Mac (FRE:US), the biggest sources of financing for U.S. mortgages, slumped as concern grew that they may need to raise more capital to overcome write downs and satisfy new accounting rules. Freddie Mac declined 18 percent to $11.91, the lowest since November 1993.

Fannie and Freddie were rumored to announce bailouts yesterday afternoon… That didn’t happen, but the markets are smelling blood in the water. The markets now feel as though these two will need approx. $75 Billion in new Capital to remain viable Companies…

Could these two be the next “risk events” that I keep talking about in the U.S.? It’s all rumors and hearsay now.. But like the song goes… There’s no smoke without a fire…. There’s no heat without a flame…

Or… Could it be the news from Indy Mac, who agreed with regulators to halt new loans under an agreement with the regulators, and then announced that they would cut half its staff as mortgage losses mount? Again, folks, I’m not picking on these companies because I have some vendetta against them… I’m just reporting what’s on the news wires, as something that could affect the value of the dollar in the long run.

Source: Where There’s Smoke… 

Last week Congress agreed on legislation that allocates $165 billion for US war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The funds will last until mid-2009, when President Bush’s successor will have to deal with the US economy.

Earlier this year the Bush administration presented a record $3.1 trillion federal budget for 2009. The Pentagon snapped up over $500 billion for defense spending, an increase for the 11 consecutive year.

Bill says the end of the Cold War should have signaled the end of massive military budgets and the start of a domestic investment spree. It didn’t. And now an uncompetitive US economy is feeling the strain…

An empire is, fundamentally, in the business of providing protection. People in America applauded when the Soviet Union collapsed and China took the capitalist road…but it practically put them out of business. There was nothing to provide protection against.

The sensible thing for the United States to do, following the fall of its one and only major enemy, would have been to cut the defence budget down to a nub…and invest the money in infrastructure and capital improvements, so Americans would be able to compete on better terms with the rising economies of their former enemies. It was obvious that with billions of people entering the modern economy for the first time, the world was beginning a new, more competitive phase of development…and that without huge capital investment, labour rates for marginally skilled workers were doomed to fall.

But what kind of world would it be if people always behaved sensibly? Instead, it was party time in the U.S. of A. Americans went on a binge of spending, borrowing and soft-headed thinking. Colleges switched from teaching engineering to letting students emote on subjects such as gender and racial equality. The leading profit makers switched from manufacturing to finance…from making things to lending money…from Detroit to Wall Street. New regulations imposed higher operating costs…and more lawyers and more delays. And lobbyists got billions in special favours.

No lobbyists were as successful at squeezing the public tube as those who work for the defence industry. People come to believe what they must believe when they must believe it. The United States is an imperial power with one major leading industry: defence. But with no enemies capable of inflicting real damage to the country, the defence industry had to invent one: terrorism…and the people had to believe it.

Readers typically want to argue this point. “What about 9/11?” they ask.

Of course, terrorists always pose a danger to individuals. And if they are daring and determined enough, they pose a danger to many individuals. But they pose no real danger to the state…and none to the Pentagon. You could put all the world’s terrorists together in a single army…they would still stand no chance whatsoever of defeating the United States of America.

Normally, it is the police who are charged with protecting citizens. The fuzz fight crime and criminals…even gangs of criminals. Terrorists in the U.S.A., as near as we can tell, are practically non-existent. They don’t seem capable of breaking into a parking meter, let alone challenging the U.S. Army. There must be 10,000 paid cops for every one of them. Why bring the Pentagon onto the case?

As mentioned in these reckonings, the feds are adding to the official national debt at the rate of $1.5 billion per day. Still, neither Democrats nor Republicans dared challenge the Pentagon’s latest $600 billion spendfest. No one wants to audit the Pentagon. No one wants to oppose it. The Pentagon is in a bubble of its own.

The average man is no genius. And half the population is even dumber. He responds to popular issues by instinct. He’s not going to spend his leisure time thinking about how the military industry complex works. Instead, he’s going to get behind the man in the crisp uniform. He’ll support America’s leading industry – until it ruins him.

Yes, dear reader…every empire is a kind of bubble in power…an extraordinary, temporary thing. And like every bubble, empires end in bankruptcy…disgrace…and the perp walk.

Source: Sicking “The Fuzz” on Terrorism

The greenback was already under pressure as soaring eurozone inflation boosted expectations of an imminent rate hike by the European Central Bank.

As market uncertainty feeds into exchange rate volatility, currency expert Sean Hyman suggests two safe havens in The Offshore A-Letter…

The big name traders are dumping assets into the Swiss franc and gold. Remember when I said the euro gained against almost every currency out there? Well one currency that’s still beating the euro (even in the thought of a Eurozone rate hike) is the Swiss franc.

That’s right. The euro actually lost ground against the Swiss franc in these days of uncertainty. In fact, the Swissie even gained against the euro on the day that Trichet hinted at a rate hike. Normally that would send the euro soaring across the board and it almost did.

Though I couldn’t help but notice on these days where the money was flowing. It never ceases to amaze me. Once, the mighty Swiss franc was backed by gold so it was an obvious safe haven for traders. But today, the Swiss franc is not necessarily “safer” than any other currency.

Yet traders instinctively still run to this currency just as if it were backed by gold in uncertain times. So that’s one of the “safety zones.” Not because it’s one in reality but because it’s still treated as one by traders.

However, you can tell when that confidence and faith erodes where it really goes…the oldest currency in the world, dating back 2,000 years…

That’s right, none other than gold itself. Everything else is a piece of paper backed by confidence/faith in its government.

After reaching over US$1,030 (which was way over done for the moment by the way), gold has pulled back to its 200-day moving average region. That gives gold a healthier shot to launch upward once again in these uncertain times.

So there are your two “safety zones” when money gets scared. Gold is the safety zone in times like these and the Swiss franc is a place where traders instinctively go out of habit.

Should more uncertainty persist (and believe me it could in these days of stagflation), then expect more money flows into the Swiss franc and into gold.

Money Morning’s William Patalon III discusses how rising inflation is dominating the news on both sides of the Atlantic:

Undoubtedly, a universal theme is emerging at the Fed and other world central banks: Inflation, Inflation, Inflation.

And, on that note, most Fed-watchers believe that the next move in rates will be higher. Last week, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke reiterated his concerns about price pressures and many of his partners in crime followed in step by towing the company line. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher and his counterpart in New York, Tim Geithner, promoted the prospects (rather realities) of rising energy costs and the declining dollar as major concerns. Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren echoed the sentiment by stating that higher energy prices were “trickling through the economy.”

Philly Bank President Charles Plosser went so far as to predict that the Fed would have no choice but to raise rates to combat inflation. Even the Fed’s Beige Book reported that the domestic economy remained sluggish through May, and has been “pinched by rising food and energy prices.” On the global front, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet targeted July as a date the ECB would look to hike rates should inflationary pressures continue.

Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada held off on a much anticipated rate cut because of – what else – higher energy costs.

For now, however, the recent data showed that inflation (outside of food and energy) remained well-contained as the core CPI climbed by a modest 0.2% in May. (WE have warned you about looking only at the “non-core” figures).

By the way, the CPI, as a whole (including food and energy), experienced its largest one-month-rise in six months. Consumer activity offered perhaps the most promising news of the week as May retail sales surged by 1% as many Americans took those government rebate checks from the stimulus package directly to the malls. Even after removing gasoline sales from the equation, the retail data still experienced its best showing in a year.

Chris Mayer explains in The Daily Reckoning why investing in Africa holds such potential for profit:

Africa increasingly is right in the middle of the global quest for natural resources. It has the highest ratio of light and sweet crude in the world – the best-quality stuff you can find. And most of its oil – some 83% – comes from large fields that produce at least 100 million barrels per day.

Meaningful amounts of premium oil in large fields explains why Africa attracts so much investment. Between 2002-2006, the big oil companies tripled their spending in Africa.

The recent discovery of oil sands in the Congo by Eni, a big Italian oil group, lends more credence to the idea of Africa as the future of global oil supply. Eni hasn’t said how much resource its vast acreage might hold. But the Financial Times reports early samples suggest, “The area as a whole could hold more oil than Eni’s entire reserves of 7 billion barrels of oil equivalent.” That would put Eni’s resource on par with the huge Kashagan field in Kazakhstan. Eni potentially doubled its oil reserves with this one African find.

Right now, Africa produces only about 12% of the world’s oil output. By 2012, that could be 30%. No wonder, then, it has become such a competitive battleground for the oil companies. In a recent auction, India’s state oil company bid $321 million for an Angolan oil block. A Chinese oil giant bid $725 million. Guess who won?

It’s not just about oil, either. Africa holds tremendous amounts of natural gas, minerals, and natural resources of all kinds. Much of it is in places where it’s easy to do business. But there is often a fragile social fabric, which seems ever on the brink of a civil war or a coup or worse.

In Niger, for example, you will find some of the world’s largest deposits of uranium. Niger plans to double its output over the next several years.

Companies from all over the world – Australia, Canada, China, India, and France – scramble to lock down claims. But the uranium deposits lie in the ancestral home of the nomadic Tuareg. The Blue Men of the Desert (so-called due to the color of their favored indigo dyes) return to old ceremonial grounds to find red flags marking uranium deposits. The result is predictable – battles between the Niger army and Tuareg fighters, and bloodshed.

Yet the rewards dangling before the world’s eyes are so great. Many companies will walk the edge of that precipice for a shot at glory. A longtime holding in my Capital & Crisis advisory, Canadian Natural Resources has a mix of West African oil properties that could be significant. Another longtime holding, electrical infrastructure specialist ABB Ltd, has a big power project in Namibia and a growing presence in Africa.

Betting on Western companies that have this sort of backdoor exposure to Africa is my preferred modus operandi.

It’s far safer, for one thing. But I wouldn’t mind investing in more of a pure play if I could find a company that offers enough safety and enough upside. In my Mayer’s Special Situations letter, we recently doubled our money in Vaalco Energy, a small West African oil explorer and producer, in about eight months. So there are success stories here.

Profit Watch editor Manraaj Singh says the huge sums of money flowing from China to Africa will create great investment opportunities:

China has already invested $30 billion in Africa’s oil and gas industry. And most of that has gone to places that most Western investors would never have touched: Sudan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Nigeria….

Now it plans on investing $5 billion in the West African country of Niger. This is one of the poorest countries on earth. It ranks in the bottom five on the United Nations’ human development index. And the country is battling an insurgency by the magnificently blue-cloaked, be-turbaned, camel-riding Tuareg nomads in the north of the country. But the Chinese don’t seem remotely concerned. They plan to pump the country’s first barrel of oil next year. And to get it out of the country, they are going build a 2000-kilometre oil pipeline and a refinery with a capacity of 20,000 barrels a day.

Here’s another country about to become an economic annexe of the Middle Kingdom…

While we’re on the African oil industry, here’s a bit of very interesting news. Angola has now dethroned Nigeria as Africa’s biggest oil producer. Nigeria has held the top spot for decades. But militant attacks in the oil rich Niger Delta and worker strikes have undermined the country’s oil industry. In April, Angola produced 1.87 million barrels of oil per day. Nigeria produced 1.81 million barrels.

We aren’t in Nigeria. But our brilliant African play puts us in the thick of Angola’s booming economy. It owns airlines in the region and is setting-up a massive logistics centre in the country’s capital, Luanda.

Obama has pledged to introduce a windfall profit tax on oil companies and raise income tax for those earning over $250,000 a year if he wins the White House. McCain favors a lower corporate tax rate (from 35% to 25%) and suspension of fuel taxes during summer. Both seek tax cuts for the middle class.

“Investors should focus their minds around one uncomfortable fact,” says Martin Hutchinson in Money Morning. “Whether it’s Obama or Republican John McCain who wins the White House, expect some policy changes that won’t sit well with investors — or with the U.S. economy.”

Of all the anticipated changes, the most widely publicized is the expected introduction of a so-called “cap-and-trade” carbon-emissions-control system. Both Obama and McCain favor such a system and Congress is currently drafting legislation that is not expected to pass this year (while George W. Bush is still president), but to form a template for legislation from a Democrat-controlled Congress to be signed by either Obama or McCain in 2009.

The most economically efficient way to curb carbon emissions is by means of a carbon tax. Such a tax would penalize emissions by polluters at a flat rate per ton, and could be offset by reductions in other taxes – a decrease in the corporate tax rate, for example – thus neutralizing its overall economic effect.

Provided the tax was set at a moderate rate, it would provide incentives to shift from carbon-based fuels to other energy generation systems, while the market itself would determine which carbon uses would be discontinued and which were too expensive to change. It wouldn’t matter too much at what level the tax was initially set, since a moderate error in setting the level would produce only moderately suboptimal polluter behavior, as the incentives produced either a little too much clean-up and consequent economic damage, or not quite enough.

The carbon tax is unpopular with politicians, because of the word “tax.” From bitter experience, they have found that raising taxes leads to unpopularity and, ultimately, to electoral defeat. Even if other taxes are lowered, the squawks of the complaints and protest of the losers are always much louder than the contented purring of the winners. That explains their preference for a “cap-and-trade” emissions policy, under which politicians pretend to give something away, providing licenses to pollute, which can then be traded among users.

The main difference between the cap-and-trade schemes of McCain and Obama is this: McCain would allow the government to give out permits to polluters while Obama would auction off permits.

At first glance, McCain’s approach appears more pro-business, but consider this: If the government gives out the permits, it gets to choose which companies get what permits. That creates a huge new playing field for lobbyists and opens the door to all sorts of new opportunities for corruption, as polluters “compete” to gain the political favor of an emission permit allowance. Already in the draft Congressional legislation provision is being made for favored groups to be given special allowances of emission permits – essentially the same as the government giving them cash, as the permits will have value.

Under Obama’s proposal, however, the government will auction off the permits. That will ensure that their price is set by a market process, and that companies neither gain nor lose by their special access to legislators. It’s a much more honest process, and a much-better representation of the “free market.” And the extra revenue it generates can be returned to the taxpayers via tax reductions in other areas.

Indeed, the only disadvantage of Obama’s proposal compared to a carbon tax is that the government has to determine initially how much carbon should be emitted. That is a very difficult parameter to determine, and an error of 1%-2% in either direction can have a huge effect – as shown by the 2004-07 European Union emission permits, where too many were given out. As a result, the prices in the permit trading market dropped 98% in a couple of weeks, as companies discovered there were ample permits for all. A market with that degree of uncertainty is far more likely to result in corporate-finance game playing than in any serious reduction in emissions.

McCain’s proposal contains a number of additional potentially detrimental features. Under it, reducing emissions in emerging markets can satisfy emissions requirements. But as the European Union has discovered, one spin-off effect has been the creation of a thriving market in Chinese environmental-cleanup scams. Further complicating the scene is the fact that some industries would be partially exempted in order to allow for transitional difficulties – providing another fertile field for government meddling and corruption. Still, even with Obama’s proposal, a “cap-and-trade” system is likely to do significant economic damage, and given the fact that legislation would need to be drafted by Congress, the chance of huge economic distortions must be considerable.

A second area where both candidates essentially agree is that taxes will be higher. McCain obfuscates this, because he needs to preserve his relations with the Republican “base.” But he has made it very clear that fiscal discipline in terms of balancing the U.S. federal budget is his most important economic objective. And he favors further activity in the Middle East, a fact that’s likely to involve an expansion of defense spending. Since, even without a recession, the federal deficit in the years to September 2008 and 2009 will be close to $500 billion, McCain’s balance-budget objectives cannot be achieved without tax increases, both reversal of most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and increases beyond that.

Obama has been more up-front about his desire to reverse the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and to impose Social Security contributions on incomes above $200,000. Since he also favored U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s bill, which increases income taxes on higher incomes, an Obama administration could potentially increase the top marginal rate of income taxes increase from 35% to 52%.

Obama also favors an increase in the capital gains tax rate from its current 15% to at least 20%. On the positive side of the budget, an Obama administration would presumably save money in the Middle East. And his health-care plan, which mandates coverage for children but not for adults, would presumably be somewhat cheaper than Hillary Clinton’s plan.

Nevertheless, tax increases are inevitable no matter who wins in November. And if Obama were to win those new levies might include a supercharged capital-gains tax and even dividend-tax increases – either of which could hammer U.S. stock prices.

A third area of agreement between the candidates is in greater regulation of the financial-services business. From the viewpoint of a retail investor, this may be a good thing: After all, who could object to fewer scams and rip-offs, or-less-egregiously overpaid investment bankers?

“The export statistics are serving as evidence of an economic theory known as ‘decoupling,’”, writes Jason Simpkins in Money Morning, “in which emerging markets in Asia and Europe have developed enough market place muscle to no longer be dependent on the U.S. economy for growth”.

And ‘decoupled’ markets can survive – and even thrive – even if the United States were to spiral down into a recession.

The report ’suggests that those saying that exports are collapsing are wrong,’ Stephen Green, head of China research at Standard Chartered Bank PLC in Shanghai, said in a report.

Trade did grow with the more mature economies of the West. But China got its biggest boost from such emerging markets as India. Two-way trade with India increased by 70% in the first five months of 2008, the fastest rate of growth among China’s Top 10 trading partners.

China is also forging stronger ties with Latin America. In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao predicted that Sino-Latin American trade would reach $100 billion by 2010.

In reality, it reached $102.6 billion in 2007, surging 42% from the year before.

The fact that Chinese exports have more than weathered the global financial storm is a huge blow for critics who had earlier predicted this credit-related mess would cause China to stumble.

China’s economy grew by 10.6% in the first quarter of 2008, despite complications stemming from the U.S. credit crunch, the Chinese New Year and the worst ice storm the country had seen in decades.

‘We have a lot of evidence to support the decoupling view,’ Timothy Bond, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.’s (MER) chief Asia economist, said in a research note.

Indeed, the recent surge in exports is proof that China will continue to advance – with all but a complete collapse of the U.S. economy. The growth in sales overseas sales, regardless of what happens in the United States, but they also proved that Chinese trade isn’t dependent on the weakness of the yuan.

For years, the United States and other Western powers have claimed that China has kept its currency, the yuan, artificially low to boost exports. But the yuan gained more than 10% on the dollar in the year through May, and still exports surged.

In the past year in fact, even with the freefalling dollar, China’s trade surplus with the United States has grown from $12.6 billion to$14.3 billion, a gain of 13%. And the fact that exports are accelerating along with the value of the yuan will give China’s central bank some latitude in dealing with inflation.

‘Robust export growth could dispel domestic concerns that a stronger yuan is hurting exports too much,’ Gene Ma, head economist at China Economic Monitor, told BBC News.

The yuan has appreciated 5% against the dollar so far this year, making Chinese goods more expensive in foreign markets. At its current rate, the yuan will almost certainly improve on the mere 7% gain it posted against the dollar last year. And that will help China control inflation and shift from what its central bank called ‘heated’ growth to a more-sustainable economic expansion.

In fact, the effects of a stronger yuan already can be seen. Consumer inflation slowed to 7.7% in May from 8.5% the month prior, two government officials said Tuesday, citing statistics bureau data.

‘Inflation has peaked, at least temporarily,’ Ben Simpfendorfer, a currency strategist at Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong, told Bloomberg. ‘Pork prices have stabilized to some extent. Vegetable prices certainly have.’

Food costs account for 34% of China’s consumer price index, and growth in agricultural prices slowed to 19.3% in May from 24.2% a month earlier, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Furthermore, the recent surge in oil prices probably won’t affect China’s consumer prices because of generous government subsidies. The government can afford to subsidize the price of fuel and is likely to continue to do so, Mark Williams, an economist at Capital Economics Ltd., said in a recent report.

‘Even if international oil prices remained at their current levels, the total net subsidy bill for the year would probably amount to less than half of one percent of GDP,’ Williams wrote in a June 5 report. ‘The costs of keeping prices down are still manageable given the strength of China’s state sector. Officials are wary of anything that could raise inflation expectations.’

And even though as producer prices climbed an astonishing 8.2% in May, inflation could still recede in the second half of the year – in part because figures will be compared with prices from last year when food prices soared uncontrollably.

‘The worst is behind us now,’ Paul Tang, an economist with the Bank of East Asia Ltd. (OTC ADR: BKEAY) in Hong Kong, told Bloomberg. ‘The question is more about at what pace the improvement is going to be realized in coming months.’

Profit watch’s Manraaj Singh sees huge potential for investment in China’s stock markets:

China’s CSI 300 Index, which tracks the leading companies on both of China’s stock markets, has fallen by 32 per from its October peak. That’s the biggest decline among the world’s 20 biggest equity markets. Hard luck if you were already invested in it, but excellent news if you’re looking to get in.

The slump has narrowed the CSI 200’s price-earnings gap with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to just 13 per cent at the end of last week. It was 139 per cent at its October peak. Companies in the CSI 300 now trade at an average price-earnings ratio of 26.4, down from a record of 52.8 in October. So, right now, they’re just slightly above the 23.4 ratio for the S&P 500. And China’s higher growth rates justify that.

But take a look at the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index. It measures the performance of 42 major Chinese companies that trade in Hong Kong. It has been cheaper than the S&P 500 since March and is now valued at 18.1 times profit. That puts it on a 12 per cent discount to the U.S. markets.

That brings me back to a point that I have been making here in this newsletter – The Asian markets have been massively oversold. A correction was in order, but the current sell-off has gone beyond what can be justified by the fundamentals.

The CSI 300 surged by 478 per cent over the last two years as China’s economy continued to race ahead and the government increased the supply of state-owned shares. But valuations clearly got well ahead of themselves. The rally fizzled this year on fears that prices had outstripped earnings prospects, that new share sales would overwhelm demand and that the highest interest rates in nine years will slow profit growth.

But those fears have been overblown. Chinese companies’ earnings actually grew by 5.5 per cent in the first three months of this year. Things haven’t gone so well in America. U.S. companies profits have dropped by 16 percent in the first quarter. China is clearly the better bet right now. Even after this years’ declines, the CSI 300 is still 322% higher than it was three years ago.

So, the correction in China provides a good opportunity to get in. A lot of the best companies are now trading on very attractive valuations. Even if we make allowance for overly optimistic growth forecasts for some of them, they still offer much better value than you are getting in the West right now.

How do we best play this? I like the country’s transport sector. The Chinese economy is still booming; and so is most of Asia…

I am tremendously bullish on Asian shipping companies at the moment. Right now, I see fantastic value in this sector, and nowhere better than in China.

“While the U.S. housing market is still searching for its bottom, the situation is much livelier just south of the border.” says Sara Nunnally in Taipan Daily. “Mexico’s housing sector is seeing a strong resurgence.”

Most of this recovery – for it is a recovery, and we’ll talk about that in just a minute – is in vacation or recreational properties. And despite the cooling investments in the U.S. housing market, Mexico is seeing investment growth.

In 2005, foreign investment in Mexico was $17.6 billion. In 2006, that number was around $20 billion, with resort and vacation property investment holding more than 25% of total investment. In fact, in the first half of 2006, 500 acres of new resort property on the Pacific Coast was snapped up for $125 million.

The market for vacation and recreational properties in Mexico is booming, with $5.3 billion of foreign investment flowing into these properties just last year. Most of the activity is centered on new markets such as Puerto Peñasco and San Felipe in Baja
California, but we’re also seeing new growth in well-known areas like Puerto Vallarta and Los Cabos.

For example, one gentleman in Los Cabos has well over $100 million in property sales to his credit: condos, villas, homes, home sites and commercial resort properties…

Many buyers are coming from America. Twenty-five percent of U.S. citizens living abroad are living in Mexico. That’s about 1 million Americans – quite nearly an invasion.

Folks in Southern California can retire just over the border to Baja California and buy a comparable home for 20% less than U.S. market prices. An estimated 78.2 million people are on the edge of retirement, and a 20% savings on a retirement home with great views sounds pretty tempting.

With billions of dollars in foreign investment being pumped into Mexico’s economy, there’s been a full-blown real estate revival that extends to low-income, affordable housing.

The market for vacation and recreational properties in Mexico is booming, with
$5.3 billion of foreign investment flowing into these properties just last year.
Real estate, especially in the residential arena, may be among the country’s hottest sectors.

With the scorching hot resort and vacation industry in Mexico, you may be tempted to buy your own retirement home down there. The country has made it a lot easier, and less risky, to do so.

Investors are now protected by U.S. title insurance, bonded escrow accounts, extensive title searches, and Fideicomisos, which is a renewable Mexican property trust established specifically to protect foreign investors.

You have all the rights of a property owner in the U.S. or Canada, including the right to enjoy the property, to sell, rent, or to improve the property, whatever you want to do.

If you’re a real-estate investor, Mexico is a great emerging-market for you to consider.

Jennifer Yousfi explains how US gas prices could keep on rising…

If oil stays near $140 per barrel, gas prices could easily top $4.75 a gallon by the Fourth of July holiday, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com (MCO), said in a recent research note.

And while the thought of gas at almost $5 per gallon is distressing enough, Money Morning’s Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald thinks gas prices could go even higher. In fact, U.S. motorists could easily be looking at $7 a gallon gasoline within just two years. And that could have a disastrous impact on the U.S. economy.

“The bottom line is that the effect on the economy is going to be a lot worse than anyone’s talking about right now,” said Fitz-Gerald, a longtime energy bull who recently boosted his oil-price projection to $225 a barrel. “The bottom line is this: Until someone develops a truly [interchangeable] alternative for oil and gasoline – something that works the same, costs the same and is just as effective – Americans are just going to have to face the fact that over time they’re going to pay more.”

By fixating on near-term prices, and near-term fallout, Fitz-Gerald says that investors and economists alike are missing the bigger point: Long-term – or at least until a true replacement for oil is found – the U.S. economy is going to be badly stung, and U.S. consumers who don’t take steps to protect themselves are looking at a markedly reduced standard of living.

Moody’s Economy.com’s Mark Zandi agrees.

“Unless oil prices soon recede and Washington changes its views and acts to shore up the housing market and broader economy, the outlook for 2009 will weaken further in coming months,” Zandi said.

Zandi added that the U.S. Federal Reserve “will sacrifice near-term growth for the sake of stable prices and the economy’s longer-term prospects” and that the high cost of oil will prevent any further interest rate cuts.

But don’t look for gas prices to move up in a straight line to $5, $6 and $7 a gallon, Fitz-Gerald says. Prices will continue to fluctuate. There will be rallies, and retrenchments, as is the case with the price of any commodity.

But prices will rise, as there is still no truly “fungible” – interchangeable – replacement for petroleum. That’s what’s needed, Fitz-Gerald says.

In the interim, investors should: be “long” on oil and other commodities; have alternative-energy-related investments; and look for profit plays in ancillary sectors, Fitz-Gerald says.