We have spent the last few days holding back tears…

Michael Jackson! Robert MacNamara!

And now our heart goes out to Nantucket Island. Word came this morning that the rich are not living it up like they used to. The New York Times reports that it’s the slowest summer on Nantucket locals have ever seen. There are over 600 properties for sale – and none of them are selling. Even at discounts of up to a third off! Restaurants and bars are offering discounts too – anything to lure in the customers.

Here at the Daily Reckoning, we champion lost causes. We join the diehards. And we take up the banner of despised, persecuted minorities everywhere. So we are aggrieved by the plight of the rich. They’ve lost about $10 trillion in the downturn, according to our estimates. They’re being blamed for every sin and crime, from teen-pregnancy to shopping on Sunday.

Fashion has given them its fickle finger – their big houses, big cars, and big carbon footprints are as out-of-style as spats. And just yesterday, a press report told us that Congress was considering a surtax on the rich – to be slipped into the latest health care bonanza. No wonder they’re having such a bummer of a summer.

Sniff… sniff…

Our oldest son, Will, proposes to open up our private family office as a kind of support group for the rich. His father cleverly off-loaded the burden of managing the family money (such as it is) onto his strong, young back. Will figures there must be thousands and thousands of readers facing the same challenges he is… more on this in future issues.

Yesterday, the Dow rose 14 points. Oil fell to $60. Gold lost $19.

According to the headline in the Financial Times, the International Monetary Fund says the recession is ending. Digging deeper into the story, we find that the IMF thinks the recovery may be “weak” and may require more stimulus to get consumers spending again.

As usual, the bank is wrong about everything. There is no recession; it’s a depression. And it’s not ending; there is no recovery in sight. And more stimulus won’t cause consumers to spend more money.

“It’s really not very complicated… ,” we told our audience of publishers in London yesterday. “We’re in a depression. Not a recession.”

Sometimes when you are giving a speech, words come out more self-assured than you expected. The occasion calls for confidence… oratorical certainty, not doubts and nuances. Out come fully formed sentences – often elegant or powerful in themselves – that you barely recognize as your own. You listen… surprised at how clever the speaker is.

“It’s a depression. And it will remain a depression until this huge pile of debt accumulated over the last quarter century has been paid down. Until businesses and banks that are no longer viable have gone broke and been restructured. Until consumers have real money to spend – not just more credit. Until those things happens, there is no way for a genuine recovery to take place.

“For more than half a century, the driving force of the world economy has been the willingness of English-speaking consumers to go further and further into debt. That permitted businesses to expand sales and profits.

“Now, that trend – that lasted longer than the lifetimes of most of the people in this room – is finished. Consumers aren’t going further into debt. Bankers aren’t lending them more money. Their houses aren’t going up in price… so they have nothing to borrow against. It’s over. And now, after working your whole careers in a growing economy… you have to figure out how to survive in a declining one. ”

We could have gone further. But our listeners were already looking a little blue.

We might have told them about the latest report from Bloomberg. PMI, a large mortgage insurer predicts that housing prices will fall for almost two more years. Prices will be driven down by unemployment and foreclosures, says the insurer.

Or we might have provided evidence that consumer credit is contracting… not expanding. The feds have put trillions into the financial system. And that’s where it stays. The banks don’t lend because consumers can’t borrow. Their houses – the major source of collateral for the middle class – are going down in price. The Financial Times is on the case; it reports that consumer credit fell again in May, for the 4 th month in a row. “Delinquencies at record high,” says another FT headline.

We might have explained that not only is the shift from credit expansion to credit contraction the biggest thing to come along since WWII… there’s also a major shift of wealth and power taking place. The Anglo-Saxon commercial (and military) empire has peaked out. The wealth and power of English speakers has been expanding, relative to the rest of the world, for the past three centuries. That trend, too, seems to have come to an end.

And more thoughts…

*** Lord Rees-Mogg invited us for lunch at his favorite gentleman’s club – the Garrick.

It is our favourite too. A club originally founded for actors and writers, it was the club in which Dickens and Thackeray had a legendary feud. More recently, Prince Charles dined in a private room with intimate friends. And now your editor goes there for lunch from time to time.

It is a grand old building… with ornate trimmings… hung with paintings of great actors and theatre scenes. The place seems perfect for a conversation about monetary policy. It is as old as the South Sea Bubble… and a monument to an industry of make-believe.

William made an interesting point.

“The Obama team doesn’t seem to know what it is doing on economic matters, does it? They had a good man on the team – Paul Volker. He was the only one who really knew what he was doing. And they seem to have edged him out.

“This is a very bad sign. It was Volker who saved the day the last time the US dollar seemed to be headed for the scrap heap. This time, it looks as though they have no intention of saving it.”

The dollar hardly looks like it needs saving now. It rose slightly yesterday. Generally, throughout the crisis of the last 6 months, the dollar has been favored as a safe haven.

Yesterday too, prices of gold and commodities fell – in dollars. The greenback rose against cotton, coffee, silver – just about everything.

But there are two things going on… two things that appear contradictory… and which lead investors to make big mistakes. On the one hand, the world economy is contracting – which is naturally deflationary. Demand goes down… prices go down… the currency in which prices are quoted goes up. On the other hand, the people who control the currency are doing all they can to cause it to go down.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the US national debt is rising by about $1 trillion per year. It will hit $12 trillion this fall. By next fall, it will be at $13. The interest alone this year is $565 billion – about 4% of the nation’s total output.

The last time the US over-spent on anything approaching this scale was during the ‘guns and butter’ years – the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam and a Great Society at home. He got both. He also got inflation. Inflation rates hit double digits in the late ‘70s. The dollar seemed to be going the way of all paper money – to nothing.

But “Tall Paul” Volker was called to the Fed. He said he was going to snuff inflation… and he meant it. Against widespread criticism – his effigy was burnt on the steps of the capitol – he took the yield on 10-year T-notes (from memory) all the way to 15%. The economy entered its worst recession since the Great Depression. Politicians howled. The press roared. Everyone seemed to want Paul Volker’s head. But Reagan backed him up. And he beat inflation and saved the dollar.

But that was then. This is now. Now, the country is far deeper in debt… with a much weaker economy… and much stronger rivals. Not even Paul Volker could play Paul Volker’s role this time.

Source: A Bummer of a Summer for the Rich

President Nixon instated price controls on the 15^th of August, 1971. Inflation was a little over 4% at the time. Price controls manifestly did not work (resulting in shortages of all sorts and a deep recession) and were rescinded a few years later. President Ford went to Congress with programs to fight inflation that was running closer to 10% in October of 1974, with a speech entitled “Whip Inflation Now” (WIN). He famously urged Americans to wear “WIN” buttons. That policy too was less than effective, and the buttons, in a history replete with silly gestures by governments, should stand on anyone’s top ten list of such silly gestures.

Cynics more thoughtfully wore the buttons upside down and said the inverted letters (which looked like NIM) stood for “No Immediate Miracles.” They were right. There was no miracle, just eventual pain and lots of it. Ultimately, Paul Volker defeated inflation, but at the cost of two serious recessions and a lot of economic misery, with unemployment levels over 10% for nine months in 1983.

This week we were given the data that inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the last year was 4.2% and unemployment is now 5.5%. Some call for the Fed to raise rates so that we do not have to experience another lost decade like the ’70s and then ultimately see some future Volker forced to raise rates and drive unemployment back to 10%. Others suggest that “core” inflation is what should be paid heed to, and urge caution.

This week we look at the cost of what could be a renewed effort to Whip Inflation Now, not just here but in countries worldwide. Will Trichet in Europe raise rates even as the European economy seems to be slowing down? If you think inflation is bad in the US and Europe, take a peek at Asia. And I ask, “What will Ben do?” It should make for an interesting letter.

Whip Inflation Now

Nixon and his advisors thought inflation at 4% was serious enough to institute price controls. Headline inflation in the US is now 4.2%. What kind of economic policy should we pursue to bring inflation back into the Fed’s comfort zone of 1-2%? Would it work and would it be worth the pain? To get a handle on the question, let’s go to the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and see where inflation is coming from.

And let me note, this is the same exercise we could do for a host of countries. The answer will be roughly the same: there are no easy solutions.

Core inflation, or inflation without food and energy, grew at 2.3%. Inflation without food costs was an even 4% and without energy was 2.7%. Clearly energy was the leading contributor to inflation in the past year.

But the recent trend in rising inflation is even more worrying. If you look at just the last three months of data and compute an annualized rate of inflation, you find that overall inflation has risen to 4.9%, energy inflation is running at a staggering 28%, and food costs have risen 6.2%. Meanwhile, core inflation during that period dropped to 1.8%. You can see all the data at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.

Now, gentle reader, let’s think about these numbers. Food (over 14%) and energy (over 9%) combined make up roughly 24% of the CPI, yet were responsible for over 60% of the recent three-month trend in inflation. By the way, housing was up 4.9% and transportation up 8.7%, so it was not just food and energy.

What would it take to drop headline inflation back to under 2%? Well, one way would be for food and energy prices to fall. Let’s look at the possibilities.

As Donald Coxe has noted, North America has had an 18-year run of remarkably good weather in our growing season. You have to go back 800 years to get a string of years that were that good. Yet today food reserves of all types are at decades-long lows. There is very little room for any type of problem.

This growing season is not off to a good start. It looks like the yield on the corn crop will be lower than normal, and that is if we get very benign weather this fall. Given how late much of the US corn crop was planted, and how torrential rains in the corn belt have devastated crops (not to mention flooding cities, and our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have lost their homes to flooding), an early frost would be disastrous.

Because we have devoted so much of our arable land to corn (in a very misguided policy to turn food into ethanol), we have less for soybeans, which is putting upward price pressure on beans and other grains that are used to feed cattle, hogs, chickens, etc. In fact, it costs so much to feed livestock that ranchers are shrinking their herds.. This means more meat is coming into the system now, which is dampening prices. Increased supply will reduce prices in the short term, but next fall we will find that supplies of all types of meat will be short. That will potentially send meat prices soaring. Cereal and bakery products are up 10% over the last year. They could continue to rise in the fall if the corn crop does not yield more than currently projected. It will cost even more to feed your household and feed the animals we need for meat.

Food is the most basic of commodities. Demand is fairly consistent, and supplies may come under pressure. Looking for food inflation to drop back by the fall to 2% is not realistic in the current environment.

What about energy? There is some more hope there, at least on the oil front. High prices have reduced demand in the US, with gasoline usage down about 4%.

I think we have reached a tipping point. The psyche of the US consumer has been permanently scarred. Slowly, this country is going to replace its fleet of cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Over time, we will see demand continue to fall. We could see further drops in the demand for gas in the next few months.

Much of Asia used to subsidize oil prices to their consumers. That is changing, as Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan have announced they are decreasing their subsidies, as the cost is simply too much. Malaysia now spends 25% of its budget on oil subsidies, and must raise prices or cut other services – or watch inflation get worse. India is now contemplating how to cut its subsidies. Even China is likely to start to raise costs after the Olympics. These countries are going to go through their own price shocks. All this will reduce world demand for oil.

Retail Sales Take a Dive

Many commentators, looking for a bullish lifeline, have pointed to the fact that retail sales grew in April by 1.8% over this time last year. But that is truly grasping at straws. Just last November they were growing at 6% year over year and have been dropping relentlessly for the last six months. And as good friend and data maven Greg Weldon points out, retail sales last November were 1.3% over inflation and now are a negative 2.1% below inflation. Retail sales are clearly headed down. (www.weldononline.com, a must-read for those who need in-depth analysis of all things and data economic)

But there was growth. Gasoline sales were up 16.3%. And food sales were up 6.1%. 77% of the increase in retail sales this year has been from increases in food and gas sales. If you take out food and gas, retail sales are down by about 2% in the last three months.

The consumer is getting squeezed. Reuters did a rather anecdotal, but revealing survey of Wal-Mart buyers at the beginning of the month. They found a significant increase in store traffic from the end of the month to the first of the month. Surveys showed that shoppers were stretched on their budgets due to rising gas and food costs and simply had to wait until their monthly checks came to go to the store for food. Many indicated they had changed their buying habits, now shopping at lower-cost stores like Wal-Mart.

At the Mauldin household I must admit to a kind of food shock upon my return. I eat a lot of smoked turkey from a local grocery deli. Arriving back from South Africa last night, I sent my oldest son to the store to put in a supply for the next few days. My “regular” turkey that was about $5.99 a pound a few months ago is now selling for $8.99. That is considerably higher than the 5.9% food-at-home inflation rate that the folks who give us the CPI tell us is the case. Next time I will find a less expensive brand, as the Reuters survey suggest shoppers all across the country are doing.

(I do recognize the inconsistency of saving a few dollars at home while I eat out at nice restaurants where the price increases are even greater. It is all about what is in your head. There are books and massive studies devoted to such behavior.)

“Leslie Dach, executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations at Wal-Mart, said the cycle of shoppers running out of money in between paychecks and then flocking to its stores on payday is ‘more pronounced, more visible.’

While many U.S. retailers are facing waning sales as shoppers cut back on purchases of clothes, jewelry or home furnishings, Wal-Mart’s vast grocery business and its emphasis on low prices is spurring a resurgence at its U.S. stores and in its stock price.” (Reuters)

But prices are actually up at Wal-Mart. And not just from food. Looking at the latest Commerce Department data, we find that US import prices are up 15% year over year. Even taking out gasoline, prices are up 6.2%. And it is somewhat surprising that it is only 6.2%. Why?

Because the dollar has fallen by more than 6%. The Chinese ambassador to the US, Mr. Zhou Wenzhong, recently pointed out that the Chinese renminbi has appreciated almost 19% since July of 2005. I have been writing for years that the Chinese would allow their currency to appreciate slowly and steadily for their own purposes and on their own schedule. They need to do so in order to contain their own rising inflation. Look for it to rise another 10% by the middle of next year.

Consider that because of the rise of the renminbi, the prices for oil and food imports in China have risen 20% less than for US consumers. And the prices they charge us for their goods are only about 4% higher. But that meager growth is up from only 1% last fall. Those (notably economics-challenged Senators Schumer and Graham) who have been pressing for China to allow its currency to rise are going to find that such a rise ultimately means higher prices for US consumers. Be careful what you wish for, Senators. You just might get it.

Lower consumer spending is not just due to gas and food. There is also a psychological component. Frederic Mishkin, one of Ben Bernanke’s colleagues at the Fed, has done research that suggests the “typical American family will cut its spending by up to 7 cents for every dollar in housing wealth it loses. Given a 20% fall in prices, this adds up to a nationwide reduction in consumer spending of about $350 billion a year, or 2.5% of the U.S.’s gross domestic product. That’s a big number – more than enough to tip the economy into recession.” (Conde Nast)

And that’s if the fall in prices is only 20%. I continue to put forth the proposition that we are going to see a slow Muddle Through Recovery, as the boost we got from Mortgage Equity Withdrawals during the last recession will not be available this time.

Accounting for Inflation

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, inflation is in the eye of the statistician. Because the number you end up with is dependent on the models and assumptions you choose. As the chart below shows, there have been two major revisions to how inflation is figured, one in 1983 and another in 1998. (Thanks to Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture for this source.)

Note that using the same methodology as was used in 1983, inflation would be around 11.6% today. Before 1983, the BLS used actual home prices to account for inflation. After that time, they used something called Owners Equivalent Rent or OER. This is the theoretical price a home would rent for. There are sound reasons to use OER and equally good reasons to use actual home prices (as is done in Europe). But both methods have flaws. You just have to pick a methodology and stick with it.

And there are reasons to think that OER may not rise as it would normally do in this part of the cycle, because so many homes which cannot sell are being rented out, and rent prices might not rise as much as in past cycles.