Oil didn’t move yesterday. Neither did gold.

The Wall Street Journal reported that markets were reacting to “mixed data”.

That is to say, some reports were encouraging. Others were not. It was as if one weather forecaster called for a blizzard. The other for sunny skies and warm temperatures. Investors didn’t know how to dress.

Among the dark clouds was an item on the falloff in tax revenues. States are having a hard time balancing their books, because their tax receipts are declining. The WSJ reports that they are running 17% below last year.

Since states cannot print money, they’re forced to make cutbacks – typically reducing hours worked per employee as well as the total number of employees. This is a bad thing, says the report, because it increases unemployment and lowers the wage base. This leads to less consumer spending.

Another little cloud appeared yesterday (in addition to the consumer confidence numbers): the vacation timeshare market is collapsing at a record pace.

Well, don’t worry about it. We met a guy who explained the timeshare business to us.

“What you’re selling is a dream. You bring them to the property. You make sure they have a good time. And then you do to the numbers with them. You show them how much they save by coming to your property rather than on a typical vacation. And then you show them the other properties that they can exchange for. They think they can buy a cheap property and then exchange with an expensive timeshare. But it doesn’t work that way. They get stuck in the cheap unit and the dream gets a little faded… And then, they stop coming… and then they try to sell the timeshare. Timeshares are rarely a good investment.”

Besides, timeshares are a small, quirky part of the housing picture anyway. The real story is in the regular housing market. There, if you believe the forecasters, it’s sunny skies.

House prices seem to be stabilising. In some areas, they are going up. Of course, in some places you can get a house at half the price it sold for two years ago. That lures buyers back into the market. If we wanted a house to live in, we might be tempted too. That’s why we like falling housing prices: we get more for our money. But most people want a rising housing market. They think it makes them richer.

They’re likely to be disappointed. They show up at the beach with their umbrellas and sun-tan lotion… just as a winter storm hits the coast.

Forbes lists eight reasons to “remain worried about housing”.

• The federal tax credit, worth $8,000, is set to expire at the end of November. That will make housing $8,000 more expensive for first-time buyers.

• The Fed is also ending its $1.45 trillion shopping spree. It has been supporting housing by buying mortgage-backed derivatives. What will happen when it stops?

• Mortgage lending standards are tightening up generally.

• Houses are still not cheap. Forbes cites Shiller’s numbers, putting the average house price 41% higher than it was in 2000. Incomes did not increase during that period; ergo, houses are still too expensive.

• Damaged psychology. It will take time for potential homeowners to get over the shock of a bear market.

• The end of summer has arrived. Housing sales always go up in the summer. People relocate in summer, during the school break. Then, sales fall with the autumn leaves.

• There are still huge numbers of houses that will be repossessed. Forbes says only 12% of option ARMs have been reset. More repossessions will increase the supply of desperate sellers and decrease prices.

• There’s a ‘shadow inventory’ hanging over the housing market. It could be vast. Everyone knew it would be hard to sell a house in 2009. Many potential sellers held back, waiting for the market to stabilise. As they put their houses up for sale, that too will hold prices down.

Some wiseacre economist has probably already come up with eight reasons why housing prices will go up. But the key thing to recall is that this is a depression. It’s a major restructuring of the economy, not a standard post-war recession. After 64 years, the consumer has finally rung a bell. He has reached his limit. He cannot borrow more. He cannot spend more. He is finally cutting back. That fact will echo through the entire world economy – and through the US housing market – for many years.

Houses, like stocks and corpses, may bounce. But they will not begin a real bull market again for a long, long time.

***Our old friend Marc Faber is “highly confident” that things will turn out badly.

“The future will be a total disaster, with a collapse of our capitalistic system as we know it today, wars, massive government debt defaults and the impoverishment of large segments of Western society,” he writes.

“We have a money-printer at the Fed,” he continues, which guarantees runaway inflation, wholesale debasement of the dollar, and a major lowering of living standards for most Americans and many Europeans as well.

Meanwhile, Paul Volcker says that China’s rise merely “highlights the relative decline of the US.”

So there you have it: China on the way up, America on the way down .

That’s the drama that we’re watching every day here at the Daily Reckoning. In our view, the peak of US wealth and power probably came during the period between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers. But there are probably a lot more shoes to drop before people are fully aware of what is going on.

The way we see it, almost the entire 20th century was a mistake, a dead end. Europeans were clearly on top of the world when the century began. Then, after WWI the Europeans in America took the lead role. But WWI shook their faith in their evolving political order.

Not long after, German hyperinflation and the Great Depression shook their faith in their economic and financial order. This left a huge vacuum, which was soon filled by ruthless adventurers and ideological schemers. Much of the rest of the century – from 1939 to 1989 – was spent in hot wars and cold wars against these Bolsheviks, Fascists, Stalinists and Maoists.

In the end, the more reasonable and consensual societies of the West won the battle. But they, too, were transformed by 50 years of war and nearly a century of bad ideas .

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you,” Nietzsche warned.

Looking into the abyss created by Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Pol Pot and the rest, Western societies decided both to fight them and to join them. Tax rates soared. Regulations multiplied. University professors taught socialism, Freudianism, modernism, cubism, feminism, racism… and every other ‘ism’ they could think of. Parents spent good money to send their children to universities that turned them into mush-heads.

And – perhaps most ominous – in the United States of America, the military grew into a greedy, grasping goliath… the very thing Eisenhower had warned against.

Then, there were counter-trends in the 1980s… led by Margaret Thatcher in England and Ronald Reagan in the US. But these were mostly frauds . Top marginal tax rates were rolled back. And there were some cuts in regulatory procedures. But government spending tended to go up anyway. Worse, Ronald Reagan mistook the Soviet Union for a genuine threat and increased military spending even further to combat it.

And now, the US staggers under the weight of its eternal wars… its imperial illusions … and its everlasting efforts to provide bread and circuses. If it kept its books like a private enterprise, it would be broke. If it were a public corporation, it would be de-listed.

Still, it spends and spends… and there is no stopping the spending. Trillions are spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for no apparent reason. But who complains? Too much money is at stake. There are too many lobbyists for too many industries and too many special interests involved. Military spending – even in a time when America faces no substantial challengers – cannot be rolled back. Neither can social spending.

Marc Faber is right. There too, there are too many people with too many dogs in this fight. Both military and social spending will continue to expand until the empire is ruined.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: A Century of Bad Ideas

As for likening agriculture today to oil in 2001-2002, an investor’s pulse quickens. We all know the great run oil stocks had as the price of oil sprinted from under $30 to a peak of $143 per barrel. Investors made hundreds-of-percent gains – even thousands-of-percent gains. What most investors forget is that oil prices halved from 2000 to the bottom in 2001, just before the great run-up. The same sort of setup seems to be happening today in the agriculture sector. Most ag commodities fell more than 50% after hitting their June 2008 highs.

This is the pause that refreshes.

The biggest reason to get excited about agriculture is the fact that supplies are at multi-decade lows. In fact, as McLornan points out, “agriculture is one of the very few sectors globally that currently face supply shortages.”

The “stocks-to-use ratio” provides a helpful context. This ratio measures how much supply is on hand versus how much we use. High ratios imply a fully supplied market. Low ratios hint at possible shortages. You have to go back to the 1970s to find ratios in wheat and corn as low as they are today.

The kicker to all this is that last year, the world’s farmers produced a record wheat crop and the stocks-to-use ratio barely budged. There is no way we are going to top that harvest this year with all the drought hitting different parts of the world.

The International Grains Council (IGC) predicts a fall in total wheat output in 2009-10. The IGC predicts global wheat output of 650 million tons, down by 5% from the previous year. The largest declines are seen in the European Union, the U.S., China, Russia, and Ukraine. “Although conditions in the Northern Hemisphere are generally favorable,” the IGC says, “production is likely to fall sharply.”

McLornan says that global yields for wheat hit a plateau in the 1980s and “gene modification technology has been unable to improve what natural selection has achieved over the past centuries.” So we already have tight supplies. And they look to get tighter.

The financial crisis also threatens to reduce supplies. Farmers who cannot gain access to credit cannot put seeds in the ground. Thus, the twin forces of drought and financial crisis seem likely to exert a growing influence over the grain markets – depressing supplies and therefore, boosting prices.

We’ve seen this movie before…

In 1933, in the pit of the Great Depression, writer Sherwood Anderson took to America’s back roads to see how the country was making out. He wandered into coal towns and mill towns, farms and factories.

His account, published in 1935 as Puzzled America, gives us a peek at Depression-era days. As the title lets on, most Americans seemed not to know quite what to make of the Great Depression. “Puzzled” seems just the right word.

It was puzzling because a man was prosperous and then suddenly was not any longer. A common story in farm country during the Great Depression began something like this: There was a prosperous farmer with lots of land who grew wheat. He then went into debt to buy more land and plant more wheat. The price of wheat suddenly fell like a shot quail. And the farm went under. Just like that, our man was broke.

If the financial crisis didn’t take the farm, Mother Nature did. “It was a farm until he plowed it,” Anderson quotes one man as saying of his uncle’s place. Then the drought came. The dry soil swirled around like snow in a blizzard. The farm simply “blew away.”

The hot winds tore the bark right off the trees and burned crops to ash. Fences lay buried under dust drifts. Dust storms blackened the sky. Topsoil of thousands of acres blew away. Anderson describes a little church in North Dakota:

The boards of the church cracking and curling under the dry heat, the paint on the boards frying in the hot winds… and the dust of the fields sifting in through the cracks. Dust in the mouths of the people as they prayed for rain.

Commodity prices took a big tumble after the crash of 1929. That’s what bankrupted the once-prosperous farmers. Then you had fewer farmers farming. Then you also had drought. Supply fell and prices soon rallied hard off their bottoms. By 1937, most food commodities – corn, wheat, sugar – were as high, or higher, than their ‘29 highs.

Today, we also have the dual threat of drought and financial crisis. Farmers across the southern plains report poor crop conditions, thanks to dry weather. We also have drought in many places in the world that usually grow a lot of food.

One example: China’s Ministry of Agriculture said that a third of its crop faces drought issues. The country’s stocks-to-use ratio will fall below 30% for the first time since 1971. As AgCapita, an investment fund specializing in farmland, notes in a recent letter, China will be a net importer of 12 million metric tons of wheat. By way of comparison, Canada’s entire annual wheat exports average around 15 million metric tons.

We also have cutbacks in supply, as farmers have a harder time getting financing to buy seed, fertilizer and machinery. As The Wall Street Journal reported recently:

Across the nation, farmers are making plans to cut their production of corn, wheat, rice, peanuts, beef, pork, poultry and milk… Also, some farmers plan to grow just one crop on land that normally produces two each year, and to let some land lie fallow throughout the year.

Production of meat in every category will fall for the first time since 1973. Meanwhile, consumption of grains keeps rising. Globally, wheat demand should rise 6% this year. No surprise that retail food prices rose nearly 6% last year. I think they could rise as much this year.

Ultimately, we’ll have to grow more food…somehow. So a forward-looking investor will want to invest in the ideas that help that process along. Fertilizers are one such idea. Like a prizefighter with a tough chin, fertilizer demand doesn’t stay down for long. The reasons are simple. Lower fertilizer use means lower crop yields. Lower crop yields tend to raise prices for food. These higher prices then provide an incentive to plant more, so fertilizer demand comes back.

I’m a fan of PotashCorp (POT:NYSE), which benefits from these trends. It also owns more potash, a key fertilizer, than anybody else. As Barron’s recently noted: “Longer-term investors can take comfort in the knowledge that many crop-planting, potash-guzzling countries – like China, India, Brazil – all have growing economies.” And they have growing populations as well.

There are other ways to invest too. You can buy other ag-related businesses. You can also invest in the actual food commodities. I expect good moves on this stuff in the back half of the year after the fall harvest disappoints.

What about demand?

I think we’re getting close to the moment when the world’s meager supplies of grains become front-page news. We have another few months before the reality of a lousy fall harvest sets in. Agriculture investments should do very well from that point – for everything from fertilizer stocks to agricultural equipment makers to the grains themselves.

As always, I recommend buying assets like these before the crowd sees it on the 6:00 news.

Source: The Best Investment Opportunity of 2009

The problem I have with this dogmatic definition of a bear market rally is the following: Assuming (and this isn’t a forecast, since I really haven’t the foggiest idea where stock markets will be in six or 12 months’ time) the S&P 500 moved up to 1350 and then declined to 500, as an investor should you care if the move to 1350 — a 100% gain! — was a bear market rally?

My impression is that investors’ fixation on the recent rally being a bear market rally has actually kept most investors on the sidelines and hoarding cash. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a fund manager who, in the last 18 months, has lost 50% of his clients’ money and missed the recent rally (34% for the S&P 500). What is he likely to do? I would think that he would be inclined to purchase equities as they correct the sharp advance since early March, especially as the economic news in the near term becomes less negative.

Based on our conversations with numerous managers in recent weeks, we believe that most quantitative managers’ portfolios were not positioned in expectation of a rally. Of the nearly 80 managers we have talked to, only one manager said they were up since March 9th and the clear majority admitted to being notably down or stopped out on their positions. These managers were both long-only and long-short quant managers using market neutral and non-market neutral strategies, sector neutral and non-sector neutral strategies, longer term and intermediate-term holding periods. It is fair to say that just about everyone is bewildered and trying to understand when this rally will end.

Another factor to consider is that there has been a significant improvement in the technical position of world stock markets. In the US the largest number of new 12-month lows was reached in October. At the November 21 low at 741 for the S&P 500, the number of new lows had already contracted, and even more so at the index’s March 6 low at 666. Also, market breadth and the number of stocks moving above their 200-day moving averages have taken a decisive turn for the better, indicating that the stock market advance is broadening and that the number of stocks that have bottomed out (at least in the intermediate turn) is expanding.

I have explained repeatedly in the past that if a government is really determined to try and postpone an inevitable collapse by “printing money” in order to lift or support asset prices, it can be done. However, the result of such a monetary policy is to lower the purchasing power of its paper currency, with catastrophic long-term consequences for its economic and financial volatility.

It forces individuals and institutions with cash to buy something…anything. So, this cash is channeled into gold and/or different paper currencies, commodities, equities, bonds, real estate, and consumer goods and services, but obviously with different intensities and at different times. For instance, at some times, such as in 2008, more money will be allocated to gold; while at other times, such as since early March, more money will flow into equities and industrial commodities. It is well understood that these money flows are driven largely by speculative activity (and more than a little dose of manipulation). The result in all asset markets is very high volatility and price fluctuations that don’t appear to make any sense to most market participants and observers who don’t understand the new rules of the investment game that were brought about by “money printing”.

This is where we are today, irrespective of whether or not you and I like policies of “quantitative easing, massive bailouts, and frightening fiscal deficits” and their long-term consequences! Another positive factor for stock markets is that a large number of Asian stock markets and individual stocks in the region had already bottomed out in October and November of 2008 and didn’t confirm the new low in the S&P in early March.

In Asia, the Taiwan and Shanghai indexes, and Korea’s Kospi Index, are all up by more than 50% from their late October 2008 lows. (The Shenzhen Index is up 90%.) But it is not only the Asian equity markets that have outperformed the US and Western European markets over the last few months; since late January 2009, the RTS Russian Index is up 66% and the MSCI Emerging Market ETF is up by 55% from its early November 2008 low.

This is not to say that the global economy is about to embark on a strong and sustainable growth phase. It also doesn’t mean that a new bull market in global equities à la 1982– 2000 has begun. But I think that, at least in nominal terms (inflation-adjusted), the global printing presses being run by the world’s central banks and fiscal deficits have begun to impact asset prices positively. Therefore, in the case of resource and mining stocks, as well as Asian equities (and, for that matter, most emerging and other stock markets around the globe), the lows thatwere reached between October and March of this year are likely to hold — that is, for now.

The markets that have the highest probability of having made major longer-term lows are resource-related equities, emerging markets, and Japan. Conversely, the asset market that has the highest probability of having made a secular high (such as Japan in 1989, or the Nasdaq in March 2000) is the US long-term government bond market.

Despite a still-weakening economy and massive quantitative easing, long-term bond yields appear to be on the verge of breaking out on the upside. I have listed again below all the equity recommendations I have made since December 2008. Some of these equities have already moved up substantially (resource and mining companies, in particular) and, therefore, I would only buy most of these recommendations on a correction.

In addition, a number of BRIC and other (mostly emerging market) closed-end country funds and ETS were recommended, such as Brazil ETF (EWZ), the Templeton Russia Fund (TRF), the Greater China Fund (GCH), the Asia Pacific Fund (APB), Taiwan iShares (EWT), the Japanese ETF (EWJ), the Japan Smaller Capitalization Fund (JOF), the Morgan Stanley India Fund (IIF), the Turkish Fund (TKF), and the MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM).

In the US, late last year we recommended buying the iShares iBox Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) and Nicholas Applegate Convertible & Income Fund (NCV), while earlier this year we recommended the accumulation of stocks of high-tech companies such as Cisco (CSCO), Intel (INTL), Oracle (ORCL), and Yahoo (YHOO). More recently, we recommended beaten-down insurance companies and financials as rebound candidates, including Leucadia National (LUK) and CNA Financial (CNA), Citigroup (C), the BKX, the Financial Bull 3x Shares (FAS), and the Financials Select Sector SPDR.

The market’s advance had been broadening and that more and more groups such as airlines (AMR), homebuilders (TOL, CTX, HOV), and cyclicals such as Dow Chemical (DOW), International Paper (IP), and Alcoa (AA) are showing signs of having bottomed out. Among commodities, I am particularly intrigued by natural gas. There are natural gas ETFs (UNG, GAZ), but costs are high. A better way is probably just to buy future contracts, or Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) or the First Trust ISE Revere Natural Gas Index Fund (FCG).

Source: What to Buy…or Not Buy

Our old friend, Marc Faber, says he expects a 10% drop in the stock market before the rally resumes.

Maybe. This rally is going to end sometime. But it probably has a ways to go. There are still a lot of suckers who haven’t been drawn in.

Another old friend, Rick Ackerman, thinks the problem with this rally is capitulation…or rather, the lack of it. There’s been no capitulation, says he. And you can’t have a real bottom without it. No capitulation, no bottom.

The news from the economy is bad and getting worse.

Credit card debt has just taken its biggest plunge in 32 years…maybe ever. Credit card balances fell at a 9.7% annual rate. And the number of open credit card accounts is going down too.

What happens when people can’t pay down their loans?

“Mortgage delinquencies soar in the US,” says a Reuters article. Remember, delinquencies are the beginning of the process. Then come foreclosures and auctions – all eventually driving housing prices down further.

And when property prices fall, so does the collateral behind the banks’ and other financial institutions’ assets. So, their troubles aren’t over. The worst is still ahead of us, not behind us.

But despite the bad economic outlook, investors think the worst is past for the stock market. Markets look ahead, they say, beyond the immediate economic forecast. True, but they have an adorable habit of seeing only what they want to see.

“In January 2008, when the S&Ps were in the early stages of what was to become a devastating collapse,” explains Rick Ackerman, “domestic equity mutual funds were worth about $6.5 trillion. Lo, a little more than a year later, in February 2009, we see that the value of these funds had fallen by about 48%, to $3.4 trillion. But guess what: Over that time, net redemptions totaled only 2%, or about $100 billion! What that means, explicitly, is that mutual fund investors have stuck with this bear market throughout the decline.”

Investors didn’t give up on stocks – despite the huge decline in stock market prices. What that means is that there’s still a lot of selling to be done.

“This bear market will end,” he continues, “like every other bear market in history, with a wholesale dumping of stocks at prices that will make current values seem exorbitant in comparison.”

That’s why you use trailing stops. You want to be sure that when the selling begins your stocks get sold first – long before most investors finally capitulate.

More news on how to play this bear market from Addison and The 5:

“If you’re shorting stocks, this might be of use,” writes Addison Wiggin. “Now that the easy targets are long gone (big banks, homebuilders, AIG) and the bear market rally is in full swing, short sellers are setting their sites on some more diverse organizations.”

“Hmmm… pretty all over the board, eh?” Addison notes. “There’s a mobile tech biz, several real estate players, home healthcare, a bank and a popular chain of sandwich shops. What’s the connection?”

“Most of the stocks on this list,” answers our resident short seller Dan Amoss, “are characterized by at least one of these three facets: Shorting the stock is a current fad, the company is using ‘creative” accounting methods that traders think is fraudulent, or the company is a high risk for insolvency.

“Regardless, bulls beware… when you see short interest that high (as a % of outstanding shares), you rarely see sustainable short squeezes.”

And back to Bill with more thoughts:

It’s amazing how much credibility some people have. Seems almost infinite. No matter how bad their advice…or how little they understand…people still ask their opinions.

Or, to put it another way…it’s amazing what most people will believe.

You’d think – after $50 trillion in losses – that people would be careful whom they listened to. Who would take Alan Greenspan’s thoughts seriously, for example? Yet, the newspapers still report his remarks with a straight face.

And what about all the economists who claimed that since the “U.S. has the world’s most flexible, dynamic economy” you couldn’t go wrong buying U.S. stocks? And what about the market timers who urged investors to buy “bargains” when the Dow was only 10% below its peak? And how about the regulators – such as Tim Geithner – who completely missed the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time, taking place right under their noses? And the economists who thought derivative debt made the financial world safer by “distributing risk more widely?” And those, such as Hank Paulson, who thought the sub-prime crisis was “contained” at $100 billion in losses? (Current cost of the bailouts – $12.8 TRILLION!)

As our friend Nicholas Taleb says, it’s as if these guys had wrecked a school bus – while they were driving drunk.

But instead of putting them in jail – they’re given a new school bus to drive!

Kevin Phillips, author of Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism warned of a the pending explosion of a 25-year “multibubble.”

The bubbles began in the 1980s, he says, when the financial sector accounted for 10 percent to 12 percent of the U.S. economy had grew to an “arguably crippling” 20 percent to 21 percent of GDP by the middle of this decade.

Who’s to blame? Henry Paulson, he says…and Ben Bernanke…and Alan Greenspan.

The Reuters report: “Phillips calls Paulson a Wall Street insider who was looking out for his own, and Bernanke an academic misguidedly trying to refight the 1930s Great Depression. Together they formed the wrong team at the wrong time whose ad hoc approach threw away hundreds of billions of dollars and more than doubled the Fed’s balance sheet, he says.

“What you’re seeing Bernanke do is he’s trying to create a bailout reflationary bubble, which he can’t describe as a bubble, just as Greenspan couldn’t describe the housing mortgage bubble as a bubble. What we’re seeing by Bernanke is a covert attempt to rebubble,” Phillips told Reuters.

Meanwhile, Nouriel Roubini – who’s been mostly right about the crisis – says that [Jim] “Cramer is a buffoon.”

“He was one of those who called six times in a row for this bear market rally to be a bull market rally and he got it wrong. And after all this mess and Jon Stewart he should just shut up because he has no shame…He’s not a credible analyst. Every time it was a bear market rally he said it was the beginning of a bull and he got it wrong.”

Roubini warned two years ago that the United States faced its worse recession in four decades. He points out that the current rally on Wall Street merely follows the pattern of other major downturns.

“Once people get the reality check than it’s going to get ugly again,” he says.

Finally, as promised in yesterday’s issue: What can we learn from Argentina?

In the ’30s, Argentina suffered along with the rest of the world. Until then, it was roughly as rich as Europe and rivaled America in some ways.

“As rich as an Argentine,” was an expression in England. Marrying one’s daughter to an Argentine planter was the dream of many down-at-the-heels English aristocrat.

But something went very wrong on the pampas. Instead of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Argentine’s got a raw deal from Juan Peron. Both programs were frauds. Both made things worse. But Peron’s program stuck. Americans soon came to their senses and forgot Roosevelt. Between Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama were Eisenhower Republicans and Carter Democrats. But Peronist politicians have dominated the Argentine political landscape since the ’40s.

Every problem demands a government solution. And every Peronist solution makes things worse.

Source: A ‘Rebubble’ Attempt

This from a report by Bloomberg last Wednesday:

“The slashing of interest rates will not help very much,” Faber, who manages $300 million, said in an interview in Manila. “They may cushion somewhat the decline but make matters worse.”

The Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of England, Bank of Canada and Sweden’s Riksbank each cut their benchmark rates by half a percentage point in a bid to unfreeze global credit markets. The deepening credit crisis caused a worldwide sell-off in stocks that has dragged the MSCI World Index down by 35 percent this year.

The Bank of Japan, which didn’t participate in the move, said it supported the action. Switzerland also took part. Separately, China’s central bank lowered its key one-year lending rate by 0.27 percentage point.

Today’s decision follows a global meltdown that sent U.S. stock indexes heading for their biggest annual decline since 1937. Japan’s benchmark today had the worst drop in two decades. Policy makers are aiming to unfreeze credit mark2ets after the premium on the three-month London interbank offered rate over the Fed’s main rate doubled in two weeks to a record.

Speculative Investments

Policy makers are reducing rates as economies weaken around the world. The International Monetary Fund said the global economy is heading for a recession in 2009 and increased its estimate of losses from the financial crisis to $1.4 trillion.

The Fed cut its key rate to 1.5 percent, a level last seen in September 2004. Low interest rates on deposits have pushed consumers to speculate on higher yields in other assets including stocks, real estate and commodities, Faber said.

“Had central banks around the world kept interest rates that encourage saving we wouldn’t have these problems today,” the investor said.

Faber, publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom report, told investors to sell U.S. stocks a week before 1987’s so-called Black Monday crash, according to his Web site, and recommended buying gold at the start of its six-year rally.

“The air will be clean within the next one month and we can get a fairly good rebound starting from the middle of October until the spring of next year,” he said in a Bloomberg Television interview.

Faber also warns that AIG (NYSE:AIG) may be a “much bigger problem” than Lehman…

In June Faber said, “If I’m a bad businessman and I go out of business, who’s gong to help me? But Bear Stearns and the Wall Street elite, because they are tied into the Treasury and the Federal Reserve and they have lunch together, it’s a club and so forth, they’re bailed out. It’s a joke!”

“I think a lot of banks are already bankrupt … but they hide their rotten assets … in categories where you don’t really need to value them,” Faber said. “I think the financial sectors, by-and large, has much larger problems than is perceived by the investment community and the stock market to some extent is telling you that.”

Investors should go into gold as its price did not rise as fast as that of other commodities while the central bank keeps printing money, Faber said.

The Fed has been “misleading” investors on wanting a strong dollar, Faber said, as it kept lowering the interest rates. “When it comes to action, they show no concern about inflation.”

He also blamed the central bank for forcing investors to abandon safe deposits in banks for riskier strategies by keeping rates so low.

“The Federal Reserve is the greatest speculator—they force people to speculate,” he said.

“I think they should have stopped cutting rates at say 4 percent … you could stop cutting rates and pursue a tight monetary policy. You can take other measures, mop up liquidity,” Faber added.

I can see some – albeit very modest – improvement for the US stock market. For one, it appears that the slowdown and problems in other economies, such as the UK (a disaster waiting to happen), Italy, Spain, and Ireland, are even greater than in the US. Also, since numerous emerging stock markets have underperformed the US this year, some money is likely to be repatriated from countries such as India and China, where stock markets are down approximately 40% year-to-date. We should also consider that, as Joachim Fels noted, “Fifty of the 190 or so countries in the world now have inflation running at double-digit rates. Almost all of these are EM economies.” In my opinion, some emerging economies – contrary to expectations – could therefore be hit even harder than the US. So, the good news here is that the “bad news” is even worse in some other countries than in the US (though this may be hard to believe).

The media and some market commentators who were “bullish” until late June have noticed recently that we are in a bear market, because the major indices are down roughly 20% from their peak. This is a remarkable achievement in the annals of forecasting and market timing! How many stocks had to drop by between 50% and 99% before the media and some “bulls” who have continued to talk about another upward wave in stock prices being just around the corner, which would supposedly lift the indices to new highs, finally accepted that we are now in a bear market? Don’t forget that when stock market indices made new highs seven months ago, the media and most advisers were exuberantly optimistic – although most stocks were then already in downtrends. Moreover, sentiment figures (bulls versus bears) among individual investors and investment advisers are now heavily tilted towards the bearish side. Whenever sentiment has been this negative in the past, the odds favoured at least a short term rally. Still, I need to warn our readers that since sentiment remained so extremely optimistic between 2003 and 2007 while the stock market rose, it is possible that sentiment will remain extremely negative for a long time while the market continues to decline.

The third improvement I have noticed is that, from a technical point of view, the market has become “quite” (though not extremely) oversold. But again, I need to warn here that the market would now be oversold in the context of a bull market – not in the context of a bear market, during which the oversold condition could last for a very long time. I suppose that Ambac was already oversold at US$70, and where is the stock now? Moreover, at major turning points, markets can quickly reach oversold or overbought conditions and then work out these conditions without large corrections. Let me explain.

In the summer of 1982, US equities had become extremely depressed; they were no higher than in 1964, and were down in real terms by more than 70% from their 1966 “real” high. The Dow bottomed out at 769 on August 9 and, if I recall correctly, the stock market took off on August 18. By September 22, the Dow had reached 951 (up more than 20% from the August low). The two most overbought conditions I have seen up to that time had occurred at the end of August 1982, and then again on September 22. But, thereafter, the market continued to rise: to 1296 in November 1983, to 2746 at the August 1987 peak, and to the recent high of 14,198 on October 12, 2007.

So, I wish to stress that overbought and oversold conditions must always be put in the context of both the primary trend – up or down – and the phase of the bull or bear market in which they show up. Overbought conditions at the beginning of an uptrend, and oversold conditions at the beginning of a downtrend, are meaningless from a longer-term perspective! If we are indeed in a bear market, which is my view – and has been since the summer of 2007, the current oversold position is relevant only from a very short-term point of view.

The fourth improvement I see is that some previously strong stocks and groups such as US Steel (X), Cleveland-Cliffs (CLF), IBM, and the oil sector, as well as the Nasdaq and some of its leaders such as Research in Motion (RIMM), Apple (AAPL), etc, are beginning to turn down. For the market leaders to collapse is an important precondition for a major low. But again, we need to understand that it will take much longer, and far lower prices, before the very strong stocks and sectors (mostly energy-related and materials) that have so far defied the bear market in financial stocks reach a major low.

Since I fully expect the financial crisis to spread into the real economy, I would sell those sectors and stocks that have so far defied the weakness in financial stocks. Another potentially good piece of news is that the current expansionary monetary policies make the stronger companies in an industry relatively stronger than their weaker competitors, which would then be reflected in strongly diverging stock performances. The weak company stocks could decline so much as to make them, at some point, attractive merger and acquisitions candidates for the financially stronger companies. Industry consolidation would in this scenario accelerate and lead to stronger pricing power (and inflation).

The last potentially good bit of news is that oil and other commodity prices may have reached an intermediate top. Should oil prices decline by, say, 20% to 40%, this fact will certainly be broadcasted by the media – as well as by ignorant cheerleaders and people who still don’t regard commodities as an asset class – as great news for the stock market! A relief rally would likely follow. But wait a minute: why would oil prices and other commodities decline meaningfully? Because of a lack of affordability and a weak economy around the world – not just in the US! This would lead to declining demand for raw materials and likely lower prices. (Supplies are unlikely to increase significantly, but they could be cut as a result of war, civil strife, or concerted action by the producers.) However, a weak economy or economic contraction around the world would be unlikely to be favourable for equities and corporate profits.

I need to make one more comment with respect to oil prices and commodities. It is not a strong US dollar that will lead to declining oil prices, as some commentators argue. What will bring about lower oil prices is a collapse of consumer spending in the US and elsewhere in the world. If US consumption collapses, the US trade and current account deficit will be halved and will lead to a drying up of global liquidity. I have discussed this relationship many times in the past and have clearly shown the relationship between the growth rate in Foreign Official US Dollar Reserves and the US dollar. Declining US consumption will be positive for the US dollar and will certainly bring down commodity prices because of lower demand (at least temporarily). But if you really think that such an outcome will be good for stocks, then dream on!

Finally, since the bull market in commodities began, there has been a body of people who have maintained that commodities are not an asset class. Some have even gone as far as to compare gold to washing machines. But consider the following: my dogs and my books are an asset for me, but maybe not to someone else. My dogs protect my house and my books. My books give me pleasure and – so I hope – some modest knowledge. But my dogs would be a liability to someone else if he lived in a secure condo building. (If there is such a thing as a secure condo building!) Also, my books would be useless to an illiterate person, since he would not be in a position to read them. A high-calibre mathematician is likely to be an asset for James Simons of Renaissance fame, but a huge liability in a rescue mission on Mount Everest. Water may be a huge asset if you are lost in the middle of the desert, but it is not an asset when you are standing in the rain without an umbrella and waiting for a date to arrive. So, the first point to understand is that anything can be an asset for somebody at some time, and not an asset for somebody else at some other time. Normally, cigarettes are not considered to be an asset, but in prisoners’ camps during wars, in wartime in general, and in times of hyperinflation, they are an asset – in fact, they replace cash banknotes.

Now, if someone defines an asset class as something that provides a cash flow, commodities may by this definition not be an asset. However, what if asset markets such as equities, bonds, and cash (T-bills) provide a negative return in real terms (inflation adjusted)? The moment when money loses its purchasing power because real interest rates are negative, and because we need to deal with people like Mr. Bernanke, assets such as raw land, commodities, art and collectibles do become a store of value and, therefore, represent a desirable asset class. All I wish to say is that the term “asset class” is extremely difficult to define, and that at different times and in different situations certain things and certain skills become an asset, whereas on other occasions they are useless. But one thing all my readers should clearly understand: when the last ship leaves the port as the enemy approaches, the captain of that ship will accept one kilogram of gold from you to buy your passage. I doubt that he will accept CDOs, derivative contracts, bonds or, for that matter, stock certificates of Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) or Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE). (Maybe by then the captain won’t even accept US dollars, because their value could decline precipitously during the voyage.) I may add that, in the financial sector, the last ship may be about to leave.

In sum, I believe

As Mark Gongloff noted in a column for the Wall Street Journal, “…what the U.S. really needs, if it seeks a real fix to its energy consumption problem, is less demand, not more. Mr. Market says there’s a simple way to do that. Jack up the gas tax. Don’t lower it. Economists call it a ‘Pigovian Tax’, in honor of the English economist Arthur Pigou, who early in the 20th century examined economic activity that hurts innocent bystanders. To stop behavior that’s not in the public good, you tax it more, not less.

“Of course, a higher tax would hurt working-class Americans who rely on their cars, though other taxes, like the federal payroll taxes or state sales taxes on food, could be lowered to offset it.”

Gongloff then explained that Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, President Bush’s former chief economic adviser, has proposed increasing the “gas tax” by ten cents a year for ten years in order to give the economy time to adjust. According to Professor Mankiw, who belongs to the Pigou Club, a pro-”gas tax” group, higher gasoline taxes “should lower world oil prices”, as higher prices would curtail demand considerably.

Despite my usual serious reservations about increasing taxes in order to curb demand, I would support higher gasoline taxes in the US (or tax incentives for energysaving engines and heavy penalties for gas-guzzling vehicles) because its implementation would be simple and the revenues obtained from higher gas taxes could be used to improve the entire transportation infrastructure. In particular, a better public transportation system would improve the energy efficiency of the country and lessen its addiction to imported oil. It should also be noted that the US has one of the lowest gasoline taxes in the world

In addition, opinion leaders are increasingly skeptical about the lies dished out by the government. Thomas Friedman opines that Americans “need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV – at 8 p.m. – from the White House East Room.” And Gongloff concludes that, although higher gas taxes would have all sorts of desirable effects, unfortunately, increasing them “doesn’t win elections. And the only market that matters now is the one for votes.”

At the same time, investors and strategists are becoming more and more skeptical about the economic statistics published by the various agencies. The employment, inflation, and GDP growth figures are highly suspect. According to Martin Feldstein, a former chief economic adviser to President Reagan and now a Harvard economist, “misleading growth statistics give false comfort” because “monthly data since January indicate that economic activity and GDP have been declining since the start of the year” (Financial Times, May 7, 2008).

Feldstein opines that “…although the tax rebates now underway may provide some temporary help, the combination of falling real incomes, declining household wealth and a dramatic drop in consumer confidence suggests further falls in consumer spending and GDP. But the most serious risk is that the rapid fall in house prices – down 12% in the past year and falling at a 25% rate in the past three months – will raise the number of negative equity mortgages, leading to widespread defaults and foreclosures. Because US mortgages are “no-recourse” loans (lenders have no recourse to the house’s owner beyond the value of the house) individuals with negative equity have an incentive to default. There are now an estimated 8 million negative equity mortgages – more than 15% of all outstanding mortgages. Defaults are rising and foreclosures are now at twice the rate of a year ago. A downward spiral in house prices would cause a fall in household wealth and in the capital of financial institutions, potentially resulting in a deeper and longer recession than any seen in the past several decades.”

According to Feldstein, the government should intervene to “prevent positive-equity mortgages from becoming negative-equity mortgages”. In other words, Feldstein proposes that the government should support the real estate market “by providing low interest loans with full recourse that would allow any homeowner to pay down a significant fraction of his mortgage. Homeowners would be in effect giving up the potential to default on their mortgage loans in exchange for lower interest costs.”

There are, however, some problems with Feldstein’s proposal. For one, it is likely that the majority of homeowners who are burdened with the estimated 8 million negative-equity mortgages (I have seen figures which suggest that there are 15 million negative-equity mortgages outstanding) also have negative-equity car loans and large credit card debts – in short, they have no equity to start with. So, in these cases, “full recourse” loans wouldn’t serve their purpose and would instead amount to a marketdistorting direct government subsidy of imprudent borrowers at the expense of taxpayers. Second, I wonder how Mr. Feldstein would propose supporting the market for unsold condos. In buildings with five to nine units – like a large number of garden apartment buildings – the condominium vacancy rate is at an unprecedented 15.2%. That is up from 12.2% at the end of 2007; whereas prior to 2006, it never exceeded 10%. (For rental units, the vacancy rate is even higher.

According to Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent with the New York Times, 25.2% – one in four – of the housing units built since 2000 are vacant.) Finally, I very much side with Mrs. Moneypenny who, in a witty Financial Times column dated May 3, 2008, argued that the UK government should not intervene in the housing market, because falling home prices “might be painful for some but what about the benefit for many others? What nurses and teachers and first-time buyers need is for prices to come down.” According to Mrs. Moneypenny, it is not an acceptable excuse from investors that they had not read the disclaimers. “I suspect that borrowers of 110% mortgages are in many cases young and naïve and, in their enthusiasm to buy property, had not read the disclaimers. That’s not an acceptable excuse either. Husbands should carry disclaimers. Your marriage may be at risk if you insist on rationing golf, or some such incomprehensible activity.”

Marc Faber, author of the Gloom Boom & Doom Report, argues that a slowdown in the Chinese economy could put downward on oil prices.

“Let us assume that the unthinkable happens,” says Marc in The Daily Reckoning. “China’s economy slows down sharply, or even contracts – and there are reasons why it could. Commodity prices slump and bring about economic hardship in the resource-producing countries. Imports of capital and consumer goods from Europe and Japan decline. We would then have the perfect setting for a global economic contraction with dire consequences for corporate earnings and asset prices.”

“We’re not predicting this, says Bill Bonner. “We’re sticking with our middle-of-the-road forecast…for neither worldwide prosperity nor worldwide ruin. But there are risks from both directions. And while most people expect a mild recession and quick recovery…almost no one expects the kind of global meltdown Marc imagines. We could see oil below $50…the Dow below 5,000…Wall Street wiped out…and 20 million US families busted.”

A stronger dollar may also play a role in bringing down oil prices, says commodities expert Doug Casey over at Casey Research.

Doug quotes John Kilduff, of MF Global, who says: “A substantial and sustained dollar rebound should be accompanied by a renewed affinity for other asset classes, further hastening a deflation of the commodity bubble.”

Andrew Mickey at Taipan Daily argues that $120 oil is just the start, partly as a result of what’s happening with Russia.

“Russia is not finding any new oil,” says Andrew.

“The situation is already pretty bad, and it’s only getting worse. At the current rate new oil discoveries are being made, total reserves of the world’s second-largest oil producer could be cut in half by 2030. Meanwhile, production could be slashed by 75%.”

Andrew’s colleague at Taipan Daily Justice Litle sees the Fed’s hand at work in rising oil prices.

“The world oil supply has become very tight. Demand is rising. The price for oil would ordinarily be going up to clear the market. But with all the ‘extra’ money creation coming out of the US Fed, oil prices are going up even faster (this is what the chart above shows). And I should add that just the expectation of loose money is also inflating the price of oil. There is probably $15-20 worth of ’speculation premium’ built into every barrel.”

“We’re going to have some more bank failures that will come back more to historical norms and may go above that with time,” said John Dugan, the US comptroller of currency in an interview with the Financial Times. “That is a natural consequence of the economy going from historically exceptionally benign credit conditions to something that is more normal to something you would get in a downturn.”

Dugan said the failures could come as a weakening economy puts pressure on badly underwritten loans, particularly in commercial real estate.

There are plenty of bogeymen stalking the US economy.

“Let us assume that the unthinkable happens,” says Marc Faber in The Daily Reckoning. “China’s economy slows down sharply, or even contracts – and there are reasons why it could. Commodity prices slump and bring about economic hardship in the resource-producing countries. Imports of capital and consumer goods from Europe and Japan decline. We would then have the perfect setting for a global economic contraction with dire consequences for corporate earnings and asset prices.”

“We’re not predicting this, says Bill Bonner. “We’re sticking with our middle-of-the-road forecast…for neither worldwide prosperity nor worldwide ruin. But there are risks from both directions. And while most people expect a mild recession and quick recovery…almost no one expects the kind of global meltdown Marc imagines. We could see oil below $50…the Dow below 5,000…Wall Street wiped out…and 20 million US families busted.”