Hedge fund manager/blogger Barry Ritholtz has a bone to pick with the New York Times for its "Inflation Was Tame in October" headline regarding yesterday's consumer price index report. For the record, The Sun's headline was: "Consumer prices rise 0.3% in Oct./1.4% increase in cost of gasoline helps fuel inflation, makes Fed rate cut less likely"

Won't someone please fire these lazy headline writers?

Its amazing to read these headers on inflation, which are then belied by the underlying data. As the BLS table above should make clear to even the most starry-eyed fan of Alan Greenspan, even the official inflation data remains elevated.

The NYT's headline AND reporting was the worst of the entire crowd: Inflation Was Tame in October

Inflation remains contained despite high oil prices and a record low dollar, a government report showed yesterday, offering some reassurance to the Federal Reserve as it considers whether to lower interest rates again at its meeting next month.

But economists warned that sharp increases in food and energy costs will weigh on consumers in the coming months, putting a damper on spending in other parts of the economy.

Compare that headline with these:

CPI Rise Yet Another Headwind For Retailers Forbes
Pace of consumer inflation quickens Chicago Tribune
US Economy: Energy-Led Price Gains May Restrain Fed Bloomberg
Rising gas prices push up inflation AP
US inflation fears knock stocks BBC News

Partial credit goes to the Journal headline writer trying to convey the most info in their title:

Consumer Prices Grow Moderately As Low Housing Costs Offset Energy Wall Street Journal

Let's look at the actual data:

Headline CPI grew 0.3% over the past month, the same as September. The core index (excluding food and energy), rose 0.2% for the fifth straight month. Annualized, that's 3.7% and 2.2% (ignore the rounding).

At 2.2% gains year over year, Core inflation is above the Fed's target rate.

Starbucks (SBUX) was the latest company to feel the pinch of inflation: Rising wholesale prices forced the world’s largest chain of coffee shops to raise drink prices. This led to the first ever decline in visits, and a lowered profit and sales forecast.

Starbucks, up until recently, very much a stock darling, has seen their share price tumble by a third this year.

As we have repeatedly stated, there is no free lunch. When cyou drop rates as low as we have, you ignite price increases.

Expect to see more problems like these. Firms that have been absorbing their input cost increases can no longer do so. When they finally pass along these price increases, pinched customers have no choice but to cut back.

>