Yesterday was a holiday in the US. Little news from that quarter.

But while Americans were enjoying their backyard barbecues, the rest of the world turned.

“Obama plans ‘leaner’ car industry,” says the BBC.

While most readers will focus on the last three words of that sentence, we direct your attention to the first two. The subject is the important part… not the predicate.

That the car industry may or may not get ‘leaner’ is of little interest to us. It will do what it needs to do. But that the president of the United States of America is now creating the business plan for an automobile company is surely a sign of something big. The world has already turned… perhaps more than we realize.

It was only a few months ago, we’re almost sure, that a private company figured out for itself how it would compete. If it was well-managed, and lucky, it would grow. If it made a serious mistake, it would go out of business… leaving the premises vacant for another entrepreneur.

Americans not only accepted this model, they applauded it. They thought the “free enterprise” system was the best in the world. They believed it was responsible for their wealth, their progress and their place in the world.

Now, they seem to have come to believe something else: that the president of the United States – an elected politician – should have a direct say in how individual private enterprises are organized and run.

But these are the same people who elected Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – twice! They’ll believe anything…

“Power Pendulum Swings Toward Washington,” says another paper.

People think capitalism has failed them. They never understood what capitalism was – and wouldn’t have wanted it at all if they had known what it was all about. Still, that doesn’t mean they won’t come up with something worse…

Capitalism is full of what Galbraith called “innocent frauds.” The capitalists try to exploit the workers. The workers try to take advantage of the capitalists. And the managers try to put one over on them both.

But now, the innocent frauds of capitalism are being replaced by the brute force of government. Now, the Obama team is calling the shots itself.

What does Barack Obama know about the car business? Ha… ha… ha…

Oh, you and your silly questions…

The role of government is commonly misunderstood. It is thought to be an impartial judge, an objective arbiter between competing interests, always asserting the common interest over the narrow interests of the competitors themselves. It is nothing of the sort. It has its own interests… its own delusions of competence… its own lusts for power and money. When the pendulum swings towards Washington, it is always bad news.

For no matter how big a mess GM’s owners, managers and workers made of the auto business, Washington is sure to make a bigger one.

More news:

Tom Bulford has been looking closely at the oil sector to find profitable opportunities for investors. He has some observations on the situation in Kurdistan.

“The Oil Ministry of Baghdad recently quit arguing with the Kurdish government and agreed to permit the export of 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Kurdistan. While Baghdad has been stalling, the Kurds have got on with the job of granting licenses to bold, foreign oil prospectors. And now, the latter seem to have the upper hand.

“While Baghdad may still be refusing to acknowledge the legality of these arrangements, the awkward truth is that Iraq is seeing its oil revenues fall through a combination of lower world prices and its failure to develop its own industry. In short, it needs the money.”

Editor’s note: Tom has found a small oil company, currently drilling in Kurdistan, which could hit the big time. He remembers it growing from nothing into a significant oil producer in the Gulf of Mexico. As Editor of Red Hot Penny Shares, Tom Bulford also writes a twice weekly free e-letter called Penny Sleuth. Click here to read more about the above-mentioned opportunity that he’s covered in his latest edition.

And more thoughts:

*** A hedge fund manager came by the office yesterday.

“There’s a new theory making its way around Wall Street,” he explained. “Some people think that the government will succeed in reflating the bubble. They’re putting so much money into it that they’re going to be able to create one last super-bubble… a little like the 2004-2007 period.”

Anything is possible. We were surprised the feds were able to inflate the last bubble. Back in 2002, we thought the bubble days were over – instead, the biggest bubble of all was still ahead.

The dot.com bubble had exploded. Stocks were going down. The economy was in recession. But the recession turned out to be very, very mild. Most people seemed unaware that there was a recession at all. Spending never went backwards… not an inch. In fact, all the trends already in place continued… and got much, much larger.

It is very different now.

“There’s a major change going on; most people have not noticed,” said our new friend. “People are spending money differently. First, it is obvious that they are forsaking the higher priced stores. Our fund is taking advantage of this in a very simple way. We’re short the luxury retailers and long the discount stores. Because people are changing their shopping habits. And we expect this to go on for a long, long time.

“They’re also buying different things. Everyone knows that sales of guns and ammunition are going through the roof. There are actual shortages of some items. But people are also stocking up on gardening supplies. They’re planting gardens in order to grow some of their own food. And they’re buying home entertainment systems – videos… sound systems and so forth. Instead of going out to the restaurants or the movies… they’re staying home. So, they’re making their homes more comfortable… and safer.

“Speaking of safer… sales of home safes are also taking off. They want to protect what they’ve got.

“And speaking of restaurants… have you looked at what is happening? Same phenomenon as in the retail sector. The lower priced, fast-food places, such as MacDonalds’ (NYSE:MCD), are doing fine. But just look at the ‘casual’ dining places – the places where middle class people go to eat… places like Appleby’s and Friday’s. They’re losing a lot of business.

“What I think is happening is this: people are reorganizing themselves for a different, less expensive lifestyle. They’re spending less already… but they’re preparing to spend even less in the future. Instead of going out to the mall or to a restaurant… they’re going to stay home.”

Whence cometh this desire to stay home? Remember, this is not a recession… and not even a phony recession such as we had in 2001-2002. This is different. It’s a balance-sheet depression. People are cutting back in order to repair balance sheets.

How do your repair a balance sheet? It’s not as easy at taking it in to the Pep Boys… or the muffler shop. Instead, you have to pay down debt and increase equity. You have to become wealthier by saving money, rather than spending it. That’s what companies are doing. That’s what individuals are doing. And that’s what the government ought to do.

Americans were saving almost nothing a couple years ago. But in the first quarter of this year, they saved 4.2% of disposable income – or $453 billion (annualised). That’s up from just $20 billion a year before.

Saving money is the wrench you need to repair a balance sheet. After a very long time, finally, American grease monkeys are getting to work.

“Americans are making big structural changes in the way they live. These changes are going to have a big impact on the economy for many years to come,” our friend concluded.

Source: Washington Will Make a Bigger Mess of the Auto Industry

Unless the cynical premise of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” is realized, and the Democrat presidential wingding continues to move forward at an increasingly vitriolic level through that party’s national convention in Denver in late August, whomever wins the Democratic nomination is pretty likely to be our next President. So, as investors – whether Democrat or Republican – which of the two candidates should we be rooting for?

The Case for Clinton

Our initial reaction would probably be that this question looks like a no-brainer. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose from 427 to 1,342 during the eight-year administration of Hillary Clinton’s husband, giving investors an average annual total return of 17.4% – the highest of any presidency since World War II.

That huge market run-up – and the hefty yearly returns – were pretty much justified. President Bill Clinton was committed to a balanced federal budget, raised taxes only once, and that in a moderate fashion, reformed welfare and signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

All of those policies were immensely beneficial to the U.S. economy – and to investors – as, in the short term, were the monetary expansion policies of the Alan Greenspan-led U.S. Federal Reserve (although we may well be paying the long-term price for that now). If we could be sure that Clinton would follow her husband’s policies, and that the economy was in a state fairly similar to that of 1993, we could as investors be confident that a Hillary Clinton presidency would contribute significantly to our collective net worth and, on balance, would serve the entire country equally as well.

When it comes to taxation, Sen. Clinton wants to reverse the George Bush tax cuts, and favors increases in the Social Security tax for those at the top of the income scale. She also favors a higher capital gains tax – all measures that tend to reduce both economic growth and investor returns. She also favors windfall taxes on oil companies, and has a healthcare plan that would be very expensive and that must be paid for somehow.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two Clinton’s is Hillary Clinton’s economic populism. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he campaigned on the catchy platform, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But he was notably free of the economic redistributionist and corporation bashing that had weakened the credibility of such presidential campaigns as Walter Mondale’s in 1984 and Mike Dukakis’s in 1988. When Bill Clinton was president, his treasury secretaries – Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were notably centrist and business-friendly. Economic populism only returned to the Democratic mainstream with the Al Gore campaign of 2000, and that may well be why he narrowly and unexpectedly lost to current President George W. Bush.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, already has proposed an economically nonsensical but populist idea – a gasoline-tax “holiday” for the peak summer driving season between Memorial Day and Labor Day, to be paid for from the profits of big oil companies. Such a tax change would tend to increase oil consumption, driving up prices, worsening any global warming and benefiting largely the mega-wealthy oil states of the Middle East and Venezuela.

The Sen. John McCain version of this proposal, without the attack on the oil companies, would be a subsidy from U.S. taxpayers to the oil sheiks; the Clinton version is a subsidy from the U.S. oil majors to the oil sheiks. Neither version makes much economic sense.

Obamanomics

Obama shares the Hillary Clinton flaw (from an investor viewpoint) of wanting to increase taxes – including capital gains taxes – at the top end of the scale. However, his healthcare plan would be somewhat cheaper (because it would mandate coverage only for children, not for everybody). And he’s more dovish on the Middle East, which may or may not be good policy, but is certainly likely to save money. On trade, Obama has echoed Clinton in protectionist Pennsylvania, but is believed to be generally more trade-friendly. He has notably failed to endorse the gasoline tax cut, describing it as a “classic Washington gimmick.”

When it comes to policy, then, Obama beats Clinton in investor-friendliness, albeit not by very much.

However, the really difficult question to consider is the current state of the U.S. economy.

In 1993, the U.S. economy was emerging from a recession, with only the federal budget deficit as a major worry. On the positive side of the ledger, there were signs that the economic reforms of the 1980s had made the United States more competitive with the rest of the world. In that situation, government mostly needed to get out of the way and allow the boom to billow, and that’s essentially what President Bill Clinton did.

The 2008 version of the U.S. economy is much less clear. Indeed, the outlook is downright cloudy. Commodity and energy prices are at record levels and are likely to produce substantial consumer price inflation in the months ahead. Interest rates already are at exceptionally low levels – more than two percentage points below the rate of inflation – in order to cope with the U.S. economy’s continued financial crisis.

Housing is in a deep recession, with prices dropping more rapidly than at any time since the early 1930s. The dollar is weaker against other currencies than it has ever been, yet the United States still has a huge balance of payments deficit, suggesting it is less competitive than it should be. Stock prices, which in 1993 were at moderate levels, are today within 10% of their record highs, yet corporate earnings are declining, led largely by the disappearance of earnings from the financial sector.

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

And it was economic worries that were on the minds of most voters who entered the polling booths yesterday. Those on low-incomes had recently been hit by the scrapping of the 10p tax rate. Those better off have the memories of Brown’s stealth taxes. And, of course, the ever-present credit crunch is making all of us nervous.

Where now for Gordon Brown? If he leads Labour into the next general election, Labour will lose. That certainly seems to be the opinion of many in Brown’s own party.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I reckon Labour backbenchers deliberately bided their time on the 10p tax issue. Brown announced it last year in his final Budget as Chancellor. But it was only once it came into force — conveniently one month before elections — that the rebels kicked up a stink.

Few MPs in marginal seats are looking forward to fighting an election under the Flag of Gordon. They know that the struggling economy will give opposition parties some priceless ammunition over the next couple of years. Brown can’t really duck those bullets — he was Chancellor for ten years.

Expect further dissention in the Labour ranks. In fact, the only people who stand to benefit from Brown’s continued premiership are the Conservatives. If they’re clever they’ll keep the pressure on Brown moderate enough that he stays on.

But if he wants his party to stand a chance of retaining power, he won’t. The only reason he might stick around is if he’s extremely stubborn.

Oh.

Who will build those 3 million houses?

The Government has grand plans to build 3 million new homes by 2020. Trouble is, who’s going to build them? And if anyone does want to, will they be allowed to?

Today we read that private housing orders during the first quarter of the year were 29% down on those in the same period last year. The construction industry, as everybody knows, is in a slump. Homebuilders are building fewer houses.

I’ve said this before about mortgage lenders, but the same applies to homebuilders: private businesses make decisions based on what’s best for them. Not to hit some government target.

This is how it should be, of course. This is capitalism.

Recommended

—FLEET STREET LETTER ALERT—

3 “Gloom-Loving Stocks” for the Coming Recession

Dark clouds are gathering over the UK economy.

But for contrarian-minded investors, this spells opportunity.

The Fleet Street Letter has just been given permission to share three such money moves with you today.

You can read the full briefing here.

Forecasts are not a reliable indicator of future results. Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares, never risk more than you can afford to
lose. Please seek independent financial advice if necessary. Fleet Street Publications Ltd. Customer Services: 0207 633 3600.

So at some point this policy will probably be quietly ditched. But as I’ve noted above, Gordon Brown may not be at the steering wheel for that particular U-turn.

What went wrong with Exxon?

On Tuesday Garry White wrote about the “earnings surprise” gravy train. Oil analysts are consistently underestimating the oil price, which means they also underestimate oil company profits.

This has created a great investment opportunity.

But yesterday ExxonMobil announced that its profits had missed consensus. That is to say, they were less than analysts expected.

So does that mean Garry was wrong?

“No,” says the man himself. “This says more about Exxon as a company than it does about the sector. This gravy train is still on the rails, my friend. Choo choo!”

Find out why a defiant Garry says: “There’s nothing wrong with my assessment!”

China’s next big investment…

As we all know, China’s growing rapidly. But to achieve this, it needs raw materials.

And where better to get them than mineral-rich Africa?

“This deal will net the Chinese up to 10 million tonnes of copper, and 400,000 tonnes of cobalt,” says an excited Manraaj Singh. “Not to mention how much it could make investors who get in now!”

Find out where Manraaj believes the next multi-billion dollar Chinese investment bomb is about to land…