On Nov. 4th, 2019, Apple announced a $2.5 billion plan aimed at ameliorating the Bay Area’s housing availability and affordability crisis. Amidst the economic and cultural renaissance that has occurred following the tech boom in the San Francisco Bay Area, a myriad of devastating issues have spiraled out of control. Some of these issues, which the big names in tech like Google and Apple have publicly pledged to fight, have become a popular topic amongst both the media and the general public. 

While many professionals and Bay Area residents are in a constant debate regarding whether tech companies should be vilified as the sole root cause of the Bay Area’s housing crisis, one thing is resolute: their presence has exacerbated the crisis to a devastating degree. Their presence has bled into and negatively impacted other regions of the Bay Area’s economy beyond simply the housing market, such as the small retail sector. Moreover, the debate regarding the negative influence of tech companies in regards to the housing crisis has highlighted that it’s up to far more than large tech donations to authentically and successfully absolve the region of this crisis. 

The housing crisis

Before examining the outshoots of the housing crisis and the solutions that institutions and organizations outside of the tech industry can help instill, it’s imperative to understand the current landscape of the housing crisis itself. 

According to cnbc, the Bay Area’s population increased 8.4% between 2010 and 2018, however the number of housing units rose by less than 5%. Even more shocking, between the same time frame, rents jumped 21% when adjusted for inflation, according to cnbc. Marketplace notes that currently, a homeless population of 7,000 exists in San Francisco while in San Jose, the average home value is over $1 million. As a result of the influx of high-paid tech workers into San Francisco and the surrounding regions like Silicon Valley and the East Bay, rents have increased, pushing out middle and low-income workers. In fact, five Bay Area counties have been named five out of the six most expensive places to live in the country. In response, Oakland will produce 50% more housing units this year and San Francisco plans to complete 4,700 units, according the City Journal. While the private development in the East Bay is up 15 times from 2018, MarketPlace notes that surrounding cities like San Jose have issued only 134 permits for affordable housing. 

While the supply of affordable housing continuously fails to meet the demand, the issue of homeless in the region continues to worsen. The Bay Area now houses the third largest population of people experiencing homelessness in the U.S, ranking just behind New York and Los Angeles, according to cnbc. 

Impact on local retail

The demand for expensive housing fueled by the influx of tech employees earning high wages has done far more than perpetuate the issue of homelessness and the dire need for affordable housing. The soaring rent costs have left small businesses extremely vulnerable to the presence of large tech companies. 

Consequently, as the tech industry is booming, the small retail industry is struggling. The Bay Area, known for its cultural and social diversity, is home to a plethora of mom-and-pop shops. The neighborhoods that together amalgamate to make the Bay Area are each individually inspired by the unique populations, architecture and geographical locations that define their purpose and culture. However, with property and housing rents increasing at such fast rates, the smaller, local businesses in the Bay Area are finding themselves unfit to prosper and persist. 

According to a study done by the state Economic Development Department, the number of retail businesses in the Bay Area has dropped significantly in the last 10 years. Moreover, the study reports that the average rent per square foot for retail properties has risen approximately 9% between 2015 and 2017. Specifically, 9% in Oakland and 5% in San Francisco. For the small shops and businesses that function on thin profit margins, these large incremental rent hikes are quite threatening. 

The primary manner in which these rent hikes impact these small, local businesses is that they make employees unable to dwell in close proximity to their jobs. As a result, employees are forced to commute, in some cases, multiple hours to get to their low-wage jobs. These long commutes cause them to reevaluate and assess whether or not it’s economically sustainable for them to live so far for a job that overtime, will pay less and less. In most cases, employees find that it’s not. Dennis King, executive director of Small Business Development Center in Silicon Valley, reports that this no longer cost-effective equation amounts to an unreliable workforce that is diminishing, according to Mercury News. 

Microbusinesses, businesses with 9 or fewer employees, have declined 8.1% in San Jose between 2007 and 2017, according to data from the Economic Development Department. The same data indicates that the drop was even more sharp in the San Jose metro area, where microbusinesses declined 12.7%. In both the San Francisco and Oakland metro areas, the number decreased by 6.1%. Statewide, the total decrease in microbusinesses marks at 4.2%. 

Monisha Murray, owner of a small vintage clothing store in San Jose, was forced to move her store’s location to a new part of the city as a result of a sharp rise in rent. Originally, Murray paid around $9,000 a month for 5,500 square feet that housed her store Black and Brown, which sold clothing and accessories. However, in an interview with Mercury News, Murray revealed that her landlord raised the rent to almost $20,000 a month. While she was able to talk it down to $13,000, the cost was still far too pricey for her business that operated with only nine employees. 

As a result, Murray moved her business to a 4,500 square foot space on West San Carlos Ave, where she now pays $7,000 a month. While Murray was able to avoid these rent hikes, when her 10 month lease ends, she faces the possibility of yet another rent hike. Murray stated that, should this be the case, she may be forced to close her store’s doors and instead, move it online. 

A similar story is seen with Talbot Cyclery, a famous bicycle shop in San Mateo. Although quite famous and popular, the bicycle store permanently closed this past June. Former Owner Gary Moore originally wanted to sell the building, however he had no one to pass the building down to. Moore told Mercury News that had circumstances been easier for small businesses, he would’ve retired already, seeing as he was 66 prior to the stores termination. 

Before he closed his business’ doors, Moore reported that over preceding years, he lost many employees in their 20’s and 30’s because they simply couldn’t afford to live in the San Francisco Peninsula. He also noted that people would come into his shop, find a bike, then look it up on their smartphones and buy it for a cheaper price. This trend, while indicative of shifts impacting the retail industry on a national level, is another force that is disruptive to the survival of mom-and-pop shops in the Bay Area. 

So why care? The decline of these mom and pop shops is both salient and pressing, considering microbusinesses account for 62.3% of all retail businesses and 12.4% of retail employees, according to the Economic Development Department. This decline is spreading into the larger retail industry of the Bay Area as well. Between the years of 2007 and 2017, the recorded number of retail businesses in the San Jose metro area declined by 4.4%. 

Similar to the issue of the housing crisis as a whole, the mere geographical presence of tech companies can not be deemed the sole scapegoat for the decline in Bay Area’s microbusinesses. That being said, the technological inventions of these tech companies are surely impacting the success of Bay Area microbusinesses, in addition to those nationwide. Apps like Instacart, Amazon Prime, Caviar, UberEats and Tinder are, in general, creating less foot traffic in cities all around the U.S. and the globe. With less people on the streets comes less window shopping and cross-population for local shops, like Murray’s vintage clothing store and Moore’s bike shop. While these apps exist nationwide and are not only impacting the Bay Area, perhaps the wealthier, tech-oriented demographic that the Bay Area now houses means that the employment and popularity of these apps is drastically higher in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

How California can help

Following the announcement of Apple’s multi-billion dollar pledge, professionals and government officials alike voiced their doubts regarding how sustainable and impactful these hefty donations would truly be in fighting the Bay Area’s housing crisis. 

Many believe that these large donations are not independently capable of resolving the housing crisis. Current legislation and city regulations in the Bay Area are hindering the capability of both large donations and housing plans from actually spouting change. As a result, both residential voters and local governments play an integral role in ensuring that the Bay Area makes the appropriate strides that adequately resolve the housing crisis. 

In recent years, California has made some rather paramount strides in fighting the housing crisis. For example, in 2018, Bay Area voters helped pass both statewide propositions 1 and 2, which helped make billions in funding available to the region for more housing. Similarly, electing Gavin Newsom to Governor of California has pushed the Bay Area in the right direction. Prior to winning the election, Newsom pledged to add $3.5 million in housing to California by 2025. In fact, Apples recent pledge was created in conjunction with Gavin Newsom. 

Additionally, in Berkeley, CA, voters helped pass Measure O, a $135 million bond measure allocated for funding affordable housing units for both low-income and working households made up of teachers, seniors and those with disabilities. Continuing the progress that these bills and legislations have brought to the table will only strengthen the fight against the housing crisis.

This past September, California State Legislature successfully passed AB 1487, which, in the near future, will hopefully transform the manner in which local Bay Area governments finance affordable housing projects, according to The Daily Californian. AB 1487 certifies the creation of the Bay Area Housing Financial Authority, which is intentioned to raise and grant funds for affordable housing. Moreover, the bill marks the first regional approach to combating the issue of housing availability and affordability in the Bay Area. The approach that AB 1487 presents is far more coordinated, targeted and strategic, in accordance to its ability to distribute funds on a regional basis, The Daily Californian notes. Now, it is up to Gavin Newsom to decide whether or not to sign the bill. Should he sign, the Bay Area Housing Authority pledges to work alongside surrounding Bay Area government agencies and institutions to help gather needed funds and reestablish flawed affordable housing measures. It’s a great feat that this bill passed, however if Newsom does not sign off on it, these progressive efforts will be reversed.

Moreover, there is still quite a lot of lobbying and reform that needs to take place. First and foremost, Council of Community Housing Organization Peter Cohen states that local officials and voters need to support ballot measures that will bring in money towards housing efforts, according to ABC7. Similarly, voters who neighbor the prospective plans for affordable housing construction ought to stop legally challenging proposed developments in order to lessen the vast responsibility that the city of San Francisco has in relation to the housing crisis. 

It is also imperative that local policymakers address the zoning and building regulations that have previously impeded developer’s success in actually constructing new homes, according to MarketPlace. 

Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed emphasizes that the structures and equations pertaining to the housing crisis ought to change as well. Reed told the California Globe that during his time in office, existing state structures made it rather difficult for the local governments to actually get projects approved. He argues that if the state added a fiscal incentive for local governments, this would motivate them to get more involved and at least potentially be able to break even on expensive housing projects. One of the most important things Reed emphasizes is that he urges all Bay Area residents to vote. By voting on and staying educated on bills, legislation and the actions of policymakers, Bay Area voters will be able to truly push forward the necessary progress that the Bay Area needs in this decade.  

We should all care

In conclusion, the Bay Area’s housing crisis is quite multifaceted and at its core, the crisis faces many roadblocks that are and may continue to prevent the issue from truly being resolved. Beyond the economic shifts that the housing crisis is feeding, such as the housing and retail markets, the crisis is additionally homogenizing a region that is founded on and known for its diversity. Should living in the Bay Area continue to come at a pretty hefty price tag, one of the most unique and foundational aspects of the Bay Area will irreversibly be compromised. That is, its socially and culturally diverse collection of people. The ethnically diverse pockets of the region may unfortunately disappear if policymakers, local governments and voters don’t take necessary action towards preserving the people and communities that form the Bay Area’s backbone. This phenomenon is not only impacting the Bay Area, but also is harming the nation as a whole. Going forward, preventing the homogenization of urban populations nationwide presents itself as an issue we should all collectively care about and work towards fighting.

Sources 

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/01/amazon-google-apple-seek-fix-for-housing-crisis-they-helped-create.html
2. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/09/in-bay-area-small-retail-struggles-while-tech-booms/
3. https://abc7news.com/society/how-to-solve-san-franciscos-housing-crisis/5642051/
4. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/08/editorial-housing/
5. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-facebook-google-and-amazon-are-putting-billions-of-dollars-toward-affordable-housing-but-that-money-may-be-too-little-too-late-2019-11-08
6. https://www.dailycal.org/2019/09/25/bill-aimed-at-tackling-bay-area-housing-crisis-passes-ca-state-legislature/
7. https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/state-government-in-the-way-of-california-cities-and-new-housing-goals/

For many, the week surrounding Thanksgiving is filled with eating, drinking, treacherous travel and reconnecting with family. And for millions of Americans, waking up early and traveling far distances to score crazy Black Friday deals is the immediate objective following Turkey Day. While Americans are projected to spend even more money –$29 billion to be exact– on Black Friday this year, Black Friday retail sales are anticipated to take a hit this year. With the popularity of online shopping and Cyber Monday only increasing, consumers are less motivated to actually shop in-store. Now, consumers are browsing, comparing prices and hunting down deals from the comfort of their own home. 

In the past, large department stores like Macy’s, Kohl’s and JC Penney held the largest power when it came to retail in the 70’s and 80’s. Around this time, the allure of black friday and retail sales in general came to the foreground. Thus, when it came to Black Friday, these department stores relied on and drew in more dollars than any other retail companies. 

Nowadays, however, the reality of the retail industry couldn’t be more black and white. Due to the disruption of Cyber Monday and online shopping in general, large retail chains like Macy’s and Kohl’s are having a hard time drawing shoppers to malls. As a direct result, their sales are in a slump. The model of Black Friday is essentially crazy deals for a limited and short amount of time. However, as Coresight Research CEO Deborah Weinswig stated, “Black Friday no longer represents a narrow window of opportunity in which shoppers have to wait in the cold and sprint into stores to get unmissable deals.” Holiday shopping begins much earlier in the season and now, actually occupies most of the month of November. While Black Friday is still expected to be the busiest shopping day in respects to foot traffic, Cyber Monday is expected to surpass Black Friday sales this year. That being said, Macy’s shares are down 47% this year and Kohl’s shares are down 27%. 

While the days of Americans trampling each other in a race to get a deal on a flat screen TV are decreasing, Cyber Monday and online holiday shopping sales, as previously stated, have lucrative projections. This year, online shoppers are expected to spend $143.7 billion in November and December combined, according to Adobe Analytics annual calculations. This is a 14% increase in comparison to last year’s holiday shopping period. 

This year, the holiday shopping period is 6 days shorter than normal, seeing as there’s only 22 days between Cyber Monday and Christmas. Alas, Adobe Analytics projects ecommerce sales will exceed $1 billion for for every day of November and December. This will be the first year ever that this is the case. Thanks to online shopping companies like Amazon Prime and “BOPIS” (buy online, pick up in-store) services, online shopping is just that much easier. This year, smartphone purchases are projected to account for 36% of online sales this holiday season. This statistic is up 20% from last year. 

With the ability to complete our holiday shopping needs from the 4 inch device that sits in our pockets, the odds continue to stack up against the power of Black Friday retail sales. While Black Friday has yet to occur, these statistics and projections prove that retail shopping finds itself in a very interesting cross road. As large department and retail chains are closing down nationwide, I personally am very interested to see where the future of in-person retail sales lies. 

In addition to Apple’s announcement of the new “Airpods Pro”, last week, Apple announced that they are making a $2.5 billion pledge to help ease the egregious cost of living in California, particularly in the Silicon Valley area.

The Plan 

As part of this announcement, Apple laid out a five-point course of action that includes $1 billion for affordable housing investment fund, $1 billion in mortgage assistance for first-time home buyers and in addition, opening up 40 acres of Apple-owned land, valued at around $300 million, for affordable housing. Apple stated that the remaining $200 million will be given to a San Francisco Affordable Housing fund and additionally, surrounding vulnerable cities. While the severity of the housing crisis, in both the Bay Area and California as a whole, is urgent and rapidly increasing, Apple’s plan will take two years to reach completion–depending on the availability of projects, that is. That being said, money made on the projects will be reinvested in future projects over the coming five years. 

Overall, Apple believes that their efforts will give the state of California an open credit line to build more houses and suppress the economic constraints that large tech companies have plagued regions like Bay Area, and many more, with. The financial package was created in partnership with California Governer Gavin Newsom, who pledged to inspire the “biggest wave of homebuilding in modern history.” 

Other Tech Companies Participate

Seeing as Apple is not alone in contributing to the housing crisis, other large tech companies have pledged and drafted similar initiatives and programs. This past June, Google pledged $1 billion to “redevelop company-owned land for affordable housing” and additionally, created an investment fund to attract developers to construct, at minimum, 5,000 affordable housing units in Silicon Valley. In January, Facebook partnered with an organization to raise $500 million aimed at fighting the housing crisis in California. Beyond the Bay Area, companies like Microsoft and Amazon have publicly stated that they would funnel funds towards affordable housing initiatives in Seattle (where they are headquarted).

The Housing Crisis

So what’s the issue at play here? Currently, in San Francisco, 7,000 people are homeless and in San Jose, the average home value is $1 million–double the price from 2012. With an influx of tech companies and high-paid workers flooding into both San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area neighborhoods, a shortage of affordable rent and housing options have crowded out middle and low-income workers (See Graph Below for Average Home Sale Prices). As a result, five Bay Area counties have been named five out of the six most expensive places to live in the country. Those who’ve fallen victim to this phenomenon include: teachers, restaurant workers and a multitude of people working blue collar jobs. 

Apple CEO Tim Cook stated “Affordable housing means stability and dignity, opportunity and pride. When these things fall out of reach for too many, we know the course we are on is unsustainable, and Apple is committed to being part of the solution.” Apple, clearly, is aware that as a juggernaut in the tech industry, their power and success have sweeping social and economic effects on the markets and economies surrounding their businesses headquarters. While IPO’s of tech companies and an increase in tech employees have driven up home values and rent prices in regions like the Bay Area, some of the housing costs issues are fed by problems in which companies like Facebook and Apple are not directly responsible. For example, San Jose, a city of 1.035 million people, has issued over 1,300 housing permits for residential buildings in the first half of 2019, however only 134 are for affordable housing. This poses as a threat to the completion of tech companies efforts aimed at helping the issue. George Ratiu, a senior economist at Realtor.com, cautions that at this pace, the 20,000 units that Facebook envisioned might actually take years and years to complete. Because construction isn’t keeping up with demand and housing prices are steadily increasing, people are leaving. In a direct response to the Bay Area housing issues, many have relocated to cities like Austin, Texas or Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Too Little Too Late

While it’s only right that companies accountable have begun to try and reverse the effects they’ve had on the housing market, economists and scholars warn that they might’ve come flying to the rescue a little too late. Vice President of Market Economics at Auction.com Daren Blomquist warns that because of the time it takes to build more houses and inventory, these companies might be too late. In an interview with MarketWatch, Blomquist stated “Even if ground was broken tomorrow on the new affordable housing being promised, that housing wouldn’t likely be available for at least another year, if not more.” Senator Bernie Sanders even said that apples entrance into the real estate lending industry is an attempt to dilute the fact that they helped create the current housing crisis. 

While the amount of money that these large companies have donated is rather large and worthy of recognition, some believe that it’s just a dollar short. MarketPlace notes that the public housing issue needs an injection of around $50-70 billion dollars on a national level. To this end, experts accept the money with open arms, but they know that it won’t be the end all be all for the housing crisis. 

The Ideal Solution

So what’s the correct answer? While the insane amount of donations that tech companies have pledged will surely have an impact, the true solution extends way further than donations. Beyond investing in construction, critics have acknowledged just how integral it is that all groups–businesses, community members, government actors– work together in fighting this issue. Having just the private sector involved in determining the supply of housing could actually increase housing prices all together and furthermore, in the end, it really won’t benefit companies to become reliant on tech juggernauts to save the day with large donations in the face of a crisis. 

Perhaps more effective would be if policymakers worked together to address zoning and building regulations. More specifically, the same regulations and zoning practices that have delayed developer’s agency in building new homes. Seeing as tech companies have a rather large public platform to vocalize a political and social voice, perhaps tech companies could publicly exert pressure on state and local law agents to loosen the above regulations. If they threaten to leave the area or usurp previously mentioned donations should these regulations persist, lawmakers might actually reassess and address the current housing regulations. 

Going forward, tech companies should be proactive rather than reactive. For example, housing developers have to pay a fee that supports the construction of affordable housing in the city of Mountain View (located near Silicon Valley). To allow housing developers to buy land before prices shot up, LinkedIn made this money available two years in advance to the actual construction. If Apple, Facebook and Google look into the future to draft proactive measures, they might be able to circumnavigate the existence of future problems instead of addressing them after the fact. 

Sources

1. https://www.kjrh.com/news/national/apple-will-spend-2-5-billion-to-help-solve-californias-housing-crisis
2. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-21/gavin-newsom-california-housing-crisis-solution
3. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-facebook-google-and-amazon-are-putting-billions-of-dollars-toward-affordable-housing-but-that-money-may-be-too-little-too-late-2019-11-08

Over the last three years, President Trump has become quite infamous for a variety of things: his combover, the spray tans and his “build the wall” mentality. He’s also notoriously known for loving Twitter. Trump has garnered quite a reputation on this social platform, seeing as he’s the most Twitter-active president the U.S. has ever had. 

President Trump’s tweets are, for the most part, immature, poorly informed and aggressive. However, to our country’s dismay, these 140 character-long posts have garnered the ability to impact the U.S. economy and the central banking system. Recently, Trump’s public criticism of the Federal Reserve on Twitter has cast doubt on the independence of the Fed from President Trump.

The tweets

Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, is currently keeping interest rates much higher than President Trump feels is appropriate. Trump feels as though the Fed’s current monetary policy is pushing up the dollar and as a result, causing the U.S. to be less competitive on a global scale. 

To voice his disapproval and frustration with the Fed’s recent decisions, Trump has essentially begun to cyberbully the Fed via Twitter. Shocking, no? In these string of tweets, Trump has accused the Fed of having no guts, sense or vision. He even deemed Powell a “terrible communicator!”. In the tweet pictured below, we see that Trump has gone so far as to suggest that the Fed raising interest rates is insensitive to other current events.

It’s important to note that in November of 2017, Trump himself nominated Powell to the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Powell’s decisions that don’t properly mirror Trumps desires has caused Trump to publicly say, “Where did I find this guy Jerome?!”

As we know, the Federal Reserve operates independently from the President. This lack of control clearly has frustrated Trump’s and his dreams for an expansionary monetary policy. Like most rational adults, Trump has used Twitter as his emotional outlet. However, these exclamatory and bitter tweets are almost indirectly granting the President with a sense of command over the Federal. 

The repercussions and findings

Economists from the London Business School and Duke University have come forward to report that Trump’s tweets have had a “statistically significant and negative effect on markets.” As a result, investors are now anticipating that central bank to give in to these political pressures and consequently, lower interest rates. A study performed by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has discovered these findings. 

Economists and scholars have come to this conclusion by closely analyzing the shift in Fed funds future contracts, over both short and longer terms, in conjunction with their reaction to Trump’s tweets about Powell and the Fed. (The Fed funds futures are defined as the financial contracts that indicate what the market’s opinion of where the federal funds rate will be at the time of the contracts expiration)

CNBC explains that within the Funds Market, traders essentially bet on or predict where the Fed’s benchmark overnight lending rate will end up. Policy makers and economists have watched closely for changes in how the markets view where interest rates are heading. They have found that the 30-some-odd tweets about the Fed have lowered the Fed funds futures contract by 10 basis points. 

Basis points are a common unit that are used in relation to interest rates and other types of financial percentages. 1 BPS is equivalent to .01%, 10 bps means .10% and so forth. Economists have noted that Trump’s tweets have knocked the Fed funds future by 10 bps, or as we now know, .1%. If we look at this not in the context of the Fed funds rate, this appears to be a pretty miniscule percentage. However, the Fed generally adjusts its rate by 25 bps and currently, the target fed funds rate is somewhere between 1.75% and 2%. So in reality, this .1% is a pretty substantial percentage. 

The study done by the NBER infers that because of these findings, economists are reporting that the impact of these tweets will cause the Fed to give into external political pressure, which will thus tarnish the central bank’s autonomy. While Trump can not directly influence the Fed, his publicized pressure is indirectly changing market expectations of the Fed which in turn, can most likely influence their next move. 

Why it matters

So why does this matter? The Central Bank is not a government agency and in turn, they operate autonomously from the President. It’s rights and privileges are guaranteed by the law. However, these findings show that the market expectations can and have a high chance of influencing the decisions of banks. When it comes to calculating monetary policy, the Fed may end up looking at market expectations to help decide on policy.

Additionally, these reports and predictions create a perceived lack of independence between politics and the Fed. Potential investors might feel as though this political influence and perceived interference in our central banking system might make investing in our economy too unpredictable and risky. This might in turn cause them to invest their money in foreign markets, therefore detrimentally impacting the U.S. economy. 

Sources

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/trump-s-fed-tweets-shown-to-have-significant-effect-on-trading
2. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/fed-rates-markets-bet-that-trumps-twitter-attacks-will-move-rates.html
3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/trumps-tweets-on-the-fed-and-tariffs-also-are-impacting-gold-prices.html
4. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/business/trump-fed-independence-twitter/index.html
5. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-trump-tweets/trumps-tweets-threaten-feds-independence-push-rate-expectations-lower-study-idUSKBN1W82II
6. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2019/09/23/trumps-tweets-shows-how-the-fed-lost-its-credibility-with-investors/#f31db7871ae1