Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The QE2 month LEC? The QE2 month LEC?

11-02-2010 , 10:11 AM


BB? Oops, not holding the right hand



Better go find some more money to buy back in

11-03-2010 , 09:06 AM
Its big:



FOMC QE2 announcement at 2:15 here

Quote:
About the FOMC | Meeting calendars, statements, and minutes | Transcripts and other historical materials
About the FOMC

The term "monetary policy" refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy--open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.

Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.
Structure of the FOMC

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members--the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis
. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee's assessment of the economy and policy options.

The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm
11-03-2010 , 10:09 AM
from bernanke's speech which most qe2 expectations are based on...

Quote:
Let me turn now to the outlook for inflation. Generally speaking, measures of underlying inflation have been trending downward. For example, so-called core PCE price inflation (which is based on the broad-based price index for personal consumption expenditures and excludes the volatile food and energy components of the overall index) has declined from approximately 2.5 percent at an annual rate in the early stages of the recession to an annual rate of about 1.1 percent over the first eight months of this year. The overall PCE price inflation rate, which includes food and energy prices, has been highly volatile in the past few years, in large part because of sharp fluctuations in oil prices. However, so far this year the overall inflation rate has been about the same as the core inflation rate.
Quote:
The public's expectations for inflation also importantly influence inflation dynamics. Indicators of longer-term inflation expectations have generally been stable in the wake of the financial crisis. For example, in the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's Survey of Professional Forecasters, the median projection for the annual average inflation rate for personal consumption expenditures over the next 10 years has remained close to 2 percent. Surveys of households likewise show that longer-term inflation expectations have been relatively stable. In the financial markets, measures of inflation compensation at longer horizons (computed from the spread between yields on nominal and inflation-indexed Treasury securities) have moved down, on net, this year but remain within their historical ranges. With long-run inflation expectations stable and with substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures, it seems likely that inflation trends will remain subdued for some time.
how does he go from stable and an on target to subdued?

Quote:
The Federal Reserve has a statutory mandate to foster maximum employment and price stability, and explaining how we are working toward those goals plays a crucial role in our monetary policy strategy. It is evident that neither of our dual objectives can be taken in isolation: On the one hand, a central bank that aimed to achieve the highest possible level of employment in the short run, without regard to other considerations, might well generate unacceptable levels of inflation without any permanent benefits in terms of employment.
Quote:
Although attaining the long-run sustainable rate of unemployment and achieving the mandate-consistent rate of inflation are both key objectives of monetary policy, the two objectives are somewhat different in nature. Most importantly, whereas monetary policymakers clearly have the ability to determine the inflation rate in the long run, they have little or no control over the longer-run sustainable unemployment rate, which is primarily determined by demographic and structural factors, not by monetary policy. Thus, while central bankers can choose the value of inflation they wish to target, the sustainable unemployment rate can only be estimated, and is subject to substantial uncertainty. Moreover, the sustainable rate of unemployment typically evolves over time as its fundamental determinants change, whereas keeping inflation expectations firmly anchored generally implies that the inflation objective should remain constant unless there are compelling technical reasons for changing it, such as changes in the methods used to measure inflation.
Quote:
The longer-run inflation projections in the SEP indicate that FOMC participants generally judge the mandate-consistent inflation rate to be about 2 percent or a bit below. In contrast, as I noted earlier, recent readings on underlying inflation have been approximately 1 percent. Thus, in effect, inflation is running at rates that are too low relative to the levels that the Committee judges to be most consistent with the Federal Reserve's dual mandate in the longer run. In particular, at current rates of inflation, the constraint imposed by the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates is too tight (the short-term real interest rate is too high, given the state of the economy), and the risk of deflation is higher than desirable. Given that monetary policy works with a lag, the more relevant question is whether this situation is forecast to continue. In light of the recent decline in inflation, the degree of slack in the economy, and the relative stability of inflation expectations, it is reasonable to forecast that underlying inflation--setting aside the inevitable short-run volatility--will be less than the mandate-consistent inflation rate for some time.
Quote:
Given the Committee's objectives, there would appear--all else being equal--to be a case for further action. However, as I indicated earlier, one of the implications of a low-inflation environment is that policy is more likely to be constrained by the fact that nominal interest rates cannot be reduced below zero. Indeed, the Federal Reserve reduced its target for the federal funds rate to a range of 0 to 25 basis points almost two years ago, in December 2008. Further policy accommodation is certainly possible even with the overnight interest rate at zero, but nonconventional policies have costs and limitations that must be taken into account in judging whether and how aggressively they should be used.

okay, since expectations are what matters, and inflation expectations are stable, at near 2% or above in the case of some surveys and through the tips market, why on earth is the fed saying inflation is too low? current readings shouldn't matter by their own admission that expectations are the key. whatever they do, within their own logic, should push inflation expectations above their target, destroy their credibility and likely achieve no permanent gains in employment.
11-03-2010 , 11:31 AM
Wow gold is not liking the potential of this speech- down $30 in half an hour. Markets down as well but not nearly as much.
11-03-2010 , 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolbiny
Wow gold is not liking the potential of this speech- down $30 in half an hour. Markets down as well but not nearly as much.
i think today might be a classic by the rumor sell the news. a lot of people are really starting to come grips with the reality of this situation.

interesting development is with a republican congress ron paul is in line to head the monetary policy subcommittee
11-03-2010 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolbiny
Wow JPM and HSBC cleaning up ahead of QE2, whacking gold down $30 in rapid paper flood price drop
11-03-2010 , 02:23 PM

Quote:
To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev.../20101103a.htm



11-03-2010 , 05:27 PM
Alright, so Bernanke stated today that The Fed will buy $600 Billion in treasury bonds. My question to you guys, is what exactly are they trying to accomplish? Are they hoping that a $600 Billion increase in the money supply will spur short-run aggregate demand and therefore GDP growth? Or are they hoping that by purchasing $600 Billion in treasury bonds, they will increase the price, and therefore decrease the yield (i.e. decrease interest rates in the economy), which again would hopefully spur GDP growth? Or are they just worried about deflation?

Lastly, why are they doing this when they already had the earlier stimulus? I mean, obviously it's because the economy didn't respond the way they wanted, so my question is why didn't the economy respond the way they wanted it to? Is it because they increased the money supply (or decreased interest rates) without actually spurring enough growth (because people just sat on the money)?
11-03-2010 , 05:29 PM
In at the same time as moved!
11-03-2010 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungEcon
Alright, so Bernanke stated today that The Fed will buy $600 Billion in treasury bonds. My question to you guys, is what exactly are they trying to accomplish? Are they hoping that a $600 Billion increase in the money supply will spur short-run aggregate demand and therefore GDP growth? Or are they hoping that by purchasing $600 Billion in treasury bonds, they will increase the price, and therefore decrease the yield (i.e. decrease interest rates in the economy), which again would hopefully spur GDP growth? Or are they just worried about deflation?

Lastly, why are they doing this when they already had the earlier stimulus? I mean, obviously it's because the economy didn't respond the way they wanted, so my question is why didn't the economy respond the way they wanted it to? Is it because they increased the money supply (or decreased interest rates) without actually spurring enough growth (because people just sat on the money)?
Now to answer your question:

They only have one bullet in the gun, more money. They can't do anything else.
11-03-2010 , 05:44 PM
to the picture in the OP, does anyone else think slimer from the Ghostbusters movies looks just like Karl Rove?
11-03-2010 , 05:57 PM
Not even a little.
11-03-2010 , 06:23 PM
Why is gold falling when the dollars it's denominated in are about to lose buying power? Also does anyone know by how much this $900bil is going to increase the money supply (in relative terms)?
11-03-2010 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
Why is gold falling when the dollars it's denominated in are about to lose buying power?


The price of paper gold is not rising faster for the same reason as this and this, but fear not, it will soon collapse towards zero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
Also does anyone know by how much this $900bil is going to increase the money supply (in relative terms)?
Good thing we can simply casually inquire about the "money supply" and divorce ourselves from the responsibility for accepting the superficial platitudes dangled to us.
11-03-2010 , 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.


The price of paper gold is not rising faster for the same reason as this and this, but fear not, it will soon collapse towards zero.



Good thing we can simply casually inquire about the "money supply" and divorce ourselves from the responsibility for accepting the superficial platitudes dangled to us.
Ah didn't realize that was paper gold.

If I'm being too casual I'd appreciate if you enlightened me as to how one inquires about the size of the money supply formally. In part I'm asking how much damage this $600/$900bil will inflict, and with the assumption that the greater its size relative to the amount of money in circulation the greater the magnitude of its effects will be. I however do not know the size of the money supply, hence my question. And please explain what superficial platitudes you think I'm accepting.
11-03-2010 , 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
If I'm being too casual I'd appreciate if you enlightened me as to how one inquires about the size of the money supply formally. In part I'm asking how much damage this $600/$900bil will inflict, and with the assumption that the greater its size relative to the amount of money in circulation the greater the magnitude of its effects will be. I however do not know the size of the money supply, hence my question. And please explain what superficial platitudes you think I'm accepting.
What is this "money supply" you are seeking? Does your query not presuppose the existence of this "money supply"?
11-03-2010 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungEcon
My question to you guys, is what exactly are they trying to accomplish?
the Chairman sez its to promote the "virtuous circle"
Quote:
The FOMC decided this week that, with unemployment high and inflation very low, further support to the economy is needed. With short-term interest rates already about as low as they can go, the FOMC agreed to deliver that support by purchasing additional longer-term securities, as it did in 2008 and 2009. The FOMC intends to buy an additional $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by mid-2011 and will continue to reinvest repayments of principal on its holdings of securities, as it has been doing since August.

This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.
Apparently supporting bond prices and thereby providing liquidity to ramp stocks = win for everyone

Last edited by J.R.; 11-03-2010 at 08:25 PM.
11-03-2010 , 09:14 PM
Quote:
I got a laugh out of the $600b number. The dealers were polled on their expectations last week. The response was an even half trillion. So with that as a bogie the Fed does 600 large. They wanted to do just a bit more than was actually expected. So they added on an extra 100b. They gave the market what it wanted and a little bit of extra cream on the top.

It’s like we are in Disney Land. Everything is orchestrated. For six weeks the Fed has been dishing out its intentions. Public speeches have all been planned and edited to make it appear there was a robust debate at the Fed on the merits and risks of QE. At least a half-dozen news articles were planted in major newspapers.

There was no debate. This was scripted from the beginning. The only issue was how much should be announced at this meeting. The choice of $600b proves that they are managing expectations down to hourly market reactions.

Cramer at the CNBC summed it up for me:
Quote:
“Only a chump or an idiot would hold money in a bank CD or money market fund”

He went on to add:
Quote:
“Bernanke will get the job done by any means necessary.”

When Cramer referred to, “getting the job done” he was referring to the Fed’s exclusive objective; raising the price of stocks. That is Bernanke’s solution to our problem. Bernanke believes that the wealth effect will drive consumption higher and spur the economy to create jobs.

Bernanke is going to rig the stock market in order to sucker folks with 401k’s to put up every dime they have in high beta stocks. As the markets rise they will borrow some money and spend it as they will feel richer. But really they are just borrowing against unrealized gains. When the music stops on Bernanke’s madness those same folks will get trampled on their holdings. And they will be deeper in debt. That’s Bernanke’s plan.
...
linksy
11-03-2010 , 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.
What is this "money supply" you are seeking? Does your query not presuppose the existence of this "money supply"?
This is fun but can you cut to the chase? What am I missing? I feel like I'm being toyed with by the economic forum bully, lol.
11-04-2010 , 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSpartan
This is fun but can you cut to the chase? What am I missing? I feel like I'm being toyed with by the economic forum bully, lol.
You reap what you sow.

What is the money supply. There is no number, nor is there any clear definition - its a relatively meaningless term.

M1, M2, M2, M3, AMS, MZM, TMS, Z-1's total credit, base money, non-traditional banking shadow money, etc. The St Louis FED publishes like 100 different graphs on monetary aggregates - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/24. What about the impact of the enormous risk assumption in derivatives and interest rate swaps?

Throwing around terms like money supply is often sued by those who prefer use ambiguous terms to hide behind. Moreover, the idea that therm is some formula - the fed prints x, money supply goes to y - its not a factory where you pull a lever or flip a switch.

The FED is just printing money trying to keep the insolvent financial system from collapsing, and with it the dollar system it seeks to perpetuate. This has different effects on different aspects of our monetary system, assets/ credit, etc.

Gross oversimplification and results/conclusion oriented thinking gets us no where, but you don't seem to be here to listen, learn, or share.
11-04-2010 , 12:56 AM
Yeah-

So on Wednesday gold starts at 1355- jumps 10$ at the open, then falls almost 35$, bounces bank 13-14$, then plummets 20$ in ten mins, takes an additional 30 mins to retrace that, gains a little more than that, has a nice 10$ bump at the end of the day and at midnight its at 1356.

Full of sound and fury...
11-04-2010 , 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungEcon
Alright, so Bernanke stated today that The Fed will buy $600 Billion in treasury bonds. My question to you guys, is what exactly are they trying to accomplish?
They are attempting to kill the dollar, they are winning.

Quote:
Are they hoping that a $600 Billion increase in the money supply will spur short-run aggregate demand and therefore GDP growth? Or are they hoping that by purchasing $600 Billion in treasury bonds, they will increase the price, and therefore decrease the yield (i.e. decrease interest rates in the economy), which again would hopefully spur GDP growth? Or are they just worried about deflation?
What is stated (the simple version), raise bond prices to lower yields, stabilize prices and ensure inflation is below the Fed's mandate, attempt to reduce unemployment.

What is real, the Fed is going to be the largest holder of treasuries by far and our debt will become even less attractive as is spirals out of control into hyperinflation or default (or HI followed by D). The news is good for the market to hear in the short term but equity prices should shake this off. $1-2 trillion would have the desired effect short term (lower unemployment, better housing starts, retail numbers, sentiment etc.) the purchased are not enough to spur the sort of growth the Fed claims is the intention. The Fed is announcing purchases imo because they are going to have to purchase an enormous amount of treasuries through 2011 just to spare a failed auction. This only buys time, while making our situation undeniably worse in the long run.

Quote:
Lastly, why are they doing this when they already had the earlier stimulus?
The wind is no longer propelling the sailboat... we are using that sh**** little motor.

Quote:
I mean, obviously it's because the economy didn't respond the way they wanted, so my question is why didn't the economy respond the way they wanted it to? Is it because they increased the money supply (or decreased interest rates) without actually spurring enough growth (because people just sat on the money)?
Spend $5 to get $1 in GDP growth... but don't ask me where you fu**** up.
11-04-2010 , 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.
the Chairman sez its to promote the "virtuous circle"

Quote:
The FOMC decided this week that, with unemployment high and inflation very low, further support to the economy is needed. With short-term interest rates already about as low as they can go, the FOMC agreed to deliver that support by purchasing additional longer-term securities, as it did in 2008 and 2009. The FOMC intends to buy an additional $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by mid-2011 and will continue to reinvest repayments of principal on its holdings of securities, as it has been doing since August.

This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.
Apparently supporting bond prices and thereby providing liquidity to ramp stocks = win for everyone


Bernanke Confirms That The Key Goal Of The Fed, And QE2, Is To Boost Stock Prices

Quote:
So much for the Fed's two mythical mandates of promoting "maximum employment" and maintaining "price stability." First, we had Bernanke's predecessor Greenspan confirming in late July on Meet the Press what everyone knows: namely that the primary goal of the Fed is merely to encourage higher stock prices: "if the stock market continues higher it will do more to stimulate the economy than any other measure we have discussed here." And now, courtesy of an Op-Ed by the current chairman, we get confirmation, again, just three months later, from the current chairman, that the Fed cares mostly about stimulating high stock prices, solely to create the completely artificial illusion of "wealth" for the few, the proud, the shareholders, and the banking oligarchy.

Quote:
Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.
See, the thing is Bernanke is absolutely right... when it comes to a few hundred thousand "consumers" (out of over 330 million). One group of Americans whose wealth is tied into the equity value of any given company, typically insiders, are more than happy to take advantage of this massive surge in artificial stock valuations. This last week for example they took over 660 million advantages worth. We repeatedly demonstrate that the ratio of insider selling to buying is now beyond grotesque. In the past week alone it hit over 400 (and was over 2,300 a few weeks ago) - see chart at bottom of post. So yes, those for whom Bernanke's "easing" is working, are taking advantage of it. As for the other group of beneficiaries, the ones who are going to receive over $100 billion in bonuses this year, well: they already literally own Bernanke, so we are not too worried about them either.

As for everyone else, tough luck. Since for 99% of America, surging prices will not be offset by any appreciation in their meager stock holding, nor will deteriorating employment prospects, declining home values, and a recessionary relapse in the economy provoke Americans to actually part with their increasingly meager capital as confirmed by the 26th sequential outflow from US retail mutual funds. In other words, the bulk of America has nothing to look forward to except encroaching poverty, and retirement fund balances substantiated by nothing than fraudulent, FASB-endorsed, stock valuations.
...
Quote:
But lying and scheming is nothing new to the Chairman. As we showed earlier, Bernanke lied under oath to Congress. Why should he start telling the truth now? Additionally, when all those who are chasing stock momentum higher are piggybacking on the "frontrun the Fed" trade, are benefiting, why should they voice disapproval with a strategy that is helping them, if only until such time as the market experiences another massive, and this time terminal, crash... No matter how destructive it is for everyone else.

At the end of the day, it is a question of time: when the people of America realize that all those who are selling on the chart below are doing so at the expense of 99% of American population, and are also sentencing the country to a fate of debt-based insolvency, the time will come. The time will be one of a violent overthrow of the Fed.

Until then, America
, for some odd reason believing it has achieved some atual change in the political arena, can just continue to bend over, and take the Fed's daily dose of lies, wealth transfer, and involuntary indebtedness, like a flock of very docile sheep, which has its iPad and iPhone. After all, who needs anything more.
11-04-2010 , 11:22 AM
Headlines From 2008: "Zimbabwe Stock Exchange Soars As Others Crash"

Quote:
From Businessweekly, October 22, 2008

While markets across the world have been crashing, the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange has being seeing record gains as citizens turn to equities to protect their money from the country's hyperinflation.

The benchmark Industrial Index soared 257 percent on Tuesday up from a previous one day record of 241 percent on Monday with some companies seeing share prices increase by up to 3,500 percent.

But before Wall Street traders start packing their bags and heading south, they should bear in mind that these figures are just another representation of Zimbabwe's collapsing economy and are almost meaningless in real terms.

Zimbabwe, once a regional breadbasket, is staggering amid the world's worst inflation, a looming humanitarian emergency and worsening shortages of food, gasoline and most basic goods. Inflation is at 231 million percent, but some experts put it more at about 20 trillion percent.

"Why leave money in the bank?" asked Emmanuel Munyukwi, chief executive of the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange at a seminar on the doing business in Zimbabwe on Tuesday.

"People are forced to come on the stock market. They believe that after hard currency, the stock market is the only viable option where you can get a bit of a return," he said.
11-04-2010 , 11:34 AM
WSJ - Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices

Quote:
Packagers and Supermarkets Start to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies

An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America's supermarkets and restaurants, threatening to end the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.

Prices of staples including milk, beef, coffee, cocoa and sugar have risen sharply in recent months. And food makers and retailers including McDonald's Corp., Kellogg Co. and Kroger Co. have begun to signal that they will try to make consumers shoulder more of the higher costs for ingredients.

For food executives, how quickly to pass along higher costs presents difficult choices. Missteps could be costly when the economy remains weak. Many Americans, nervous about high unemployment, have pledged allegiance to their pennies and are willing to trade down on brands, switch supermarkets, opt for Burger King over Applebee's, or stop dining out altogether to save money.

"The big challenge will be, how much can we swallow and how much can we pass along?" said Jack Brown, chief executive of Stater Bros. Markets, a 167-store grocery chain in Southern California.

...

Costs are being driven by growing demand for meat in China, India and other emerging markets. That's driven up grain prices, which in turn boost the cost of chicken, steak, bread and pasta. Grain prices also have been nudged higher by drought in Russia, planting problems around the world and speculative trading.

Food prices are rising faster than overall inflation. The consumer price index for all items minus food and energy rose 0.8% over the year to September, the lowest 12-month increase since March 1961, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The food index rose 1.4%, however. The U.S. Agricultural Department is predicting overall food inflation of about 2% to 3% next year.

The current pressure is nothing like it was in October 2008, when food prices were rising at an annual rate of 6.3% and some hard lessons were learned when producers passed along those costs: Shoppers switched to private-label products.
...

      
m