Recently, the Trump administration decided to pay subsidies to farmers to offset the impact of the trade war between the United States and other countries. A similar government intervention policy called “government cheese” had been used during the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter.

All these cheesy stories started in 1949. When the Agricultural Act of 1949 got passed, the U.S. government established the Commodity Credit Corporation to take charge of stabilizing farmers’ incomes. It was the first time for the government to purchase dairy products like milk and cheese from farmers.

In the later 1970s, The U.S. federal government distributed 300 million pounds of government cheese, an almost neon orange mixed cheese, to do food charities. This kind of cheese was five pounds per block, had a rectangular shape, and attached lots of USDA stamps. The primary purpose was to maintain the price of daily supplies. President Jimmy Carter, along with Congress, raised the price of milk 6 cents per gallon and kept increasing the price with inflation in 1977. Also, the government put $2 billion subsidies to save the dairy food industry. Although this strategy saved the dairy food industry from its shortage, the government itself became the primary customer. It bought all the milk that couldn’t be sold by farmers and processed the milk into cheese. Without the market, the government had to store all the cheese in thousands of warehouses and even some caves in 35 states.

“Probably the cheapest and most practical thing to would be to dump it in the ocean,” a USDA official said in 1981. Although the government cheese was useless for the USDA, most Americans at that time still suffered from the after-effects of the recession. Therefore, American citizens harshly criticized President Ronald Reagan and the federal government for the waste of these daily food products, which include cheese, butter, and milk powder.

Surprisingly, Agriculture Secretary John R. Block showed up at a White House event with some pieces of government cheese on his hand and said, “we can’t find a market for it, we can’t sell it, and we’re looking to trying to give some of it away.”

To distinguish the government cheese from regular cheese products, the Commodity Credit Corporation established some new supporting programs to deliver the cheese to lower-class families. One joke related to this was that if you give cheese to people who cannot afford regular cheese, it is not a behavior to hurt the current market. Obviously, it is not true. This government cheese story has shown the butterfly effect of one government intervention. Ultimately, the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program released more than 30 million pounds of cheese around the nation.

When the dairy prices came down in the 1990s, the government finally took itself out of this “cheese charity” business.

However, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue announced the plan to provide $11 billion subsidies to assist the farmers who had struggled during the Trade War, the same organization Commodity Credit Corporation comes back and start to do its job again.

Sources:

https://www.history.com/news/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/645459818/government-cheese-well-intentioned-program-goes-off-the-rails

The Tyranny and the Comfort of Government Cheese

It is almost truism to say that when you’re young, you are, as rapper Whiz Khalifa once noted, “wild and free.” Youthful exuberance, in popular Western imagination, is epitomized by reckless. But youth, as advertised, isn’t always just about the freedom to be irresponsible. It is also true that when you’re young, you’re most free to explore and inquire in ways that you can’t really do so when you have, say, a mortgage to pay off and kids to feed. Thus, your 20s are potentially your most experimental years. That is, if you are not burdened by debt.

 

Today, students at a four-year public institution pay 213% more for tuition than they would have thirty years ago. For private schools, students pay 130% more Roughly 70 percent of graduates leave college with student debt. Total student loan debt is now at about $1.5 trillion (two-thirds of which are held by woman.).

According to data from the Census Bureau compiled and aggregated by Forbes, annual cost of college, which includes room and board, tuition, and fees, has greatly outpaced median income. Even incomes for males with bachelor degrees are starting to feel the burn.

In a new survey by the Kogog School of Business, about 60 percent of millenials earning less than $50,000 a year are living “paycheck to paycheck”. Even more astonishing, about 60 percent of those earning between $50,000 to $99,000 say it’s still hard to make ends meat.

In another study, conducted by the NBC News/GenForward survey, about 62% of millenials owe more in debt than what they have saved up, with about 30% of millenials having less than $1000 dollars in their savings account and about 24% having no savings at all. Credit card debt and student loans make up the majority of the debt.

And before one jumps prematurely to the “millenials are just lazy, have bad work ethics, buy too much avocado toast etc.” argument, keep in mind, millenials tend to be workaholics, using less of their vacation time than previous age groups.

None of this is to say that these are problems unique to the young. Americans across all age groups face mounting debt. But the fact that the largest generation since the boomers must simultaneously balance debt payments while entering into an increasingly precarious labor market with few options for cheap affordable housing is cause for alarm. This isn’t just a spiritual and cultural travesty but an economic one too.

For example, in a study by the Health Science Journal on “economic growth and the harmful effects of student loan debt on biomedical research”, empirical evidence is found that supports the hypothesis that “indebtedness among young medical graduates affects speciality career choices. This means that, in the future, ceteris paribus, prospective students in biomedical sciences will be strongly incentivised, firstly, to choose the more remunerative career of medical practitioner instead of that of medical (pure or applied) researcher, and secondly to further sub-specialize in those fields that promise higher earnings to offset their higher loan repayments.”

I think this finding could be applied across most creative, professional, and specialized fields. To take just one example, there is a huge shortage (as well as underfunding) of public defenders. It’s highly possible that many attending law schools, even those with deep interests in public defense, go instead into corporate law for reasons similar to those cited in the above study: that is, to offset loan repayments or reduce precariousness in living standards—which is becoming more precarious as wealth inequality continues to widen. What are the consequences of this? A large reserve of lawyers in defense of the most privileged and a shortage of lawyers for the most marginalized, thus furthering racial and class disparity.

So what can be done? A study by the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College proposed a radical idea back in February: cancel the nation’s $1.4 trillion student debt.

The researchers looked at what would happen if the government cancelled all federal loans as a one-time policy. According to their models, this would lead to an $86 billion to $108 billion boost in GDP over the next ten years as well as reduce unemployment by .3%. What about deficit and inflation? The report indicates only “modest” effects.

Although there are many legitimate concerns to this seemingly simple solution, it may be something worth considering—a radical solution for a radical problem.

 

 

 

 

In 2015 it was Greece. In 2018 it has been Argentina, Venezuela, and Turkey just to name a few. Across the globe, those countries unable to execute the delicate ballet of monetary policy have seen staggering inflation, interest rates to match, and devalued currency. Perhaps most urgent, however, is the inability for these countries to pay back loans. Even more, 40% of low-income developing countries (not always sprawled across headlines) are either in a debt crisis or nearly there.

Let’s look at Turkey, for example. Despite raised interest rates (now at 24%), inflation is at 18% and the country doesn’t appear solvent enough to repay the foreign money dumped into the economy over the past few years. GDP is expected to contract in Q3. Just yesterday, Turkey’s Treasury borrowed around $347 million at the interest rate of 25.05%. These numbers scream impending doom. As interest payments come due, Turkey will likely have to refinance the loans or, more probably, borrow more money, this time at an even higher interest rate. This process will increase the deficit again, drive interest rates higher, and propel the positive feedback loop yet again.

It’s easy to sit behind the news headlines, shaking our heads at the recklessness of Treasury officials in Washington or Ankara or Buenos Aires or Athens. The reality is, however, that this insidious cycle happens not merely within governments, but also within a much quieter space—the world’s poorest.

A financial epiphany hit the world in the 1970s: microfinance. As inflation was skyrocketing in the US, nonprofits began to understand and prove that the “poor are creditworthy.” This realization opened the door to a now widely used process that allows individuals who wouldn’t ordinarily have access to capital, such as women in sub-Saharan Africa, to be granted loans to start small businesses. This reinvention of the financial system promised the potential to become a powerful tool in alleviating worldwide poverty.

But people, like governments, have trouble with debt.

Source: CGAP

While the lending interest rate in the United States was about 8% in 2006,  the average microfinance interest rate was about 35%, as shown in the figure above. For individuals in Uzbekistan, that number was 85%. It’s intuitive, practical, and even necessary for lenders to be compensated for risky investments through higher interest rates; this reality, however, leaves individuals trying to start a small business, like Greece in 2015, broke, desperate, and unable to attempt repayment. For microloan recipients in India, the reality was bleaker than desperation. “More than 80 people [took] their own lives in the last few months after defaulting on micro-loans,” reported the BBC in December 2010. These are devastating realities for individuals who fall prey to interest rates that are wildly unsustainable.

Let’s suppose that a microfinance organization has agreed to lend $100 to a woman in Malawi to make and sell resilient water jugs in her community. Completely ignoring start-up costs, she will have to expect returns of 37% ($137) in the first year just to pay off the loan and make a 2% ($2) profit. When this woman cannot pay off her loan at the end of the year, she’s forced to borrow more money at a higher interest rate in order to pay off the first loan. Of course, it’s unlikely that she’ll be able to pay off the second loan either. This is an infeasible system.

When interest rates are highest among individuals with the least amount of power to pay them back, these citizens turn into a personification of Greece or Argentina or Venezuela, desperately looking around, pleading for someone to help pay their debts. There is no IMF for individuals.

Betting and gambling are inherently based on chance, luck, and uncertainty. Because uncertainty is difficult to measure, and we cannot predict the future with one hundred percent accuracy, gambling on an outcome is exciting because no one knows what will happen. So, many people enjoy the thrill. In fact, the betting industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the countries of the world where it is legalized. The American Gaming Association estimates that in the United States, whose Supreme Court just struck down an important law making it illegal for states to regulate and allow sports betting, $150 billion is spent on illegal gambling each year. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was a federal law that essentially restricted sports betting to Nevada for a quarter of a century. And with PAPSA struck down, the American market is poised to become the world’s largest legal gambling market.

Although for a long time betting and gambling was seen as a vice that should be completely outlawed, much like alcohol post-Prohibition it is coming mainstream. Attempts to deny access to it, as with alcohol, brought forth illegal and shady offshore operations. Now, states and Congress are viewing a healthy amount of sports betting as “a potential source of revenue more than a detriment to society,” according to industry experts. Additionally, the rise in daily fantasy sports – considered by many to be a form of betting – has captivated the country, with nearly one-fifth of the country now participating in fantasy sports.

[source: Fantasy Sports Trade Association]

The illegality of sports gambling in the United States (save in, famously, Nevada, as well as a couple of other states) led to the rise in offshore betting sites. They were not legal or sanctioned, yet many managed to evade regulators and lawmakers. They continue to have a head start on much of the industry in America. While that is currently an issue, because states are quickly moving to legalize and regulate the industry, and Congress is moving to pass legislation as well, the legal market should win out. NBA Commissioner Emeritus David Stern declares that “between five and 10 years” from now, we will see a massive, regulated, fully online betting market in the United States.

The future legalized market in the United States could reshape the way sports teams and leagues operates, as well as create more experiences for fans to actually participate in, according to team owners and gambling experts.  Leagues see the revenue from gambling bringing in billions of dollars, money that will modify the way teams market and provide services to fans; this additional revenue could cause salary caps and team payrolls to explode as well.  Already, the Pittsburgh Pirates’ executives have argued that states should allocate sports-gambling revenues to stadium building.

According to Chris Eaton, an integrity monitor and former INTERPOL investigator, “In 10 years’ time … I see the large international conglomerates — Bloomberg, Google, the massive data companies — swallowing up most of the sports betting operations around the world and operating an international platform, with all of sports betting being essentially offered on the mobile device, the mobile platform.”

The large technology corporations are already seeking to implement their services into the betting industry. In the past decade “Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others in the technology sector made written filings to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in support of expanding so-called prediction markets into the public sphere.” This opportunity to enter a new market will not only boost revenues for the companies that are prepared, have a first-mover advantage or own large name recognition, but will also provide them with even more data.

Lawmakers and companies need to ensure this data is used efficiently and with respect for privacy; that the athletes are not taken advantage of vis-a-vis point shaving; and that gambling is properly regulated and able to be enjoyed in moderation. That these issues will be firmly addressed, however, much like betting on an outcome, are no sure things; with billions of dollars and lives at stake, it will be fascinating to experience the future prominence of legalized gambling across the United States.

It is not surprising that President Trump has launched of tariffs against China. However, he is now acting on these threats on a very large scale, so the consequences are being felt. The United States has, so far, implemented duties on $400 billion of Chinese imports. This course of action has caused China to retaliate by announcing tariffs on $60 billion of US goods. When tariffs raise the price of imported goods, costs become inflated for businesses and so prices go up and demand goes down. This would cause harm for the US economy and could ultimately result in an economic decline. 

In China, stocks and currency have already been harmed due to concerns about an upcoming trade war. The Shanghai composite index is down 18.657. Trump has threatened to expand tariffs to cover basically all imports from China to the US. China is trying to avoid following Trump’s lead as its economy is already feeling the negative effects of these tariffs. China believes that escalating the trade war will cause harm to the global economy. If Trump continues to push the country, China may retaliate by swamping US firms operating there with red tape or by using a weaker yuan as a weapon to create demand for Chinese products. President Xi Jinping has become powerful by elevating China into a global power and so he can not afford to let the US destroy its progress. President Trump does not seem like he will back down anytime soon, however, as he believes that he can win in this dangerous game of chicken. 

Opposingly, many US investors don’t seem concerned about the brewing storm with China, as the Dow Jones Industrial average is up 6.96% this year. Others are preparing for the worst in the belief that these tariffs will cause the US economy to decline. The CBOE SKEW Index rises when option trades signal the concern of an unexpected event that could have a major impact. This index is close to the highest that it’s been since records began in 1990. Part of this fear stems from the reality that no one knows how far these trade wars will actually go. Many American companies operating in China have already started to confront obstacles and are becoming increasingly worried about Chinese retaliations. These companies are faced with tariffs as well as increased inspections and slower customs clearance.

This graphs illustrates the specific industries that would face the most harm due to the disputes with China. However, Trump is attempting to help these industries. He has stated that he would may impose tariffs on basically all Chinese goods if the Chinese government retaliates on the current tariffs by targeting US farmers and workers. Trump has announced $12 billion in aid to US farmers to offset retaliating tariffs. This may not be enough for workers who are putting their livelihoods in the hands of Trump’s negotiations. 

While the United States has yet to be harmed economically due to the trade wars with China, the future is uncertain. There are signs that point to an economic decline. Many of future concerns stem from how far Trump is willing to take these tariffs and the extent to which China will retaliate.  

Your dad is a wealth manager. You grew up learning about stocks and bonds, budgeting your allowance, and wanting to be just like him. Now, its college time and your schedule is booked up with finance and consulting classes to ensure a bright future. But, what is the bright future if, by the time you graduate, the job position is filled. By who? A robot. Your dreams of working in your dad’s enterprise as a wealth manager are replaced by an algorithm.

The exponential growth of automation is fascinating to many, but take a step back. If everything becomes automated, what will people do? Already, taxi drivers are seeking new opportunities. Self-driving cars are projected to skyrocket, and eventually, there will be no need for taxi drivers anymore.

Based on an article the World Economic Forum, author Florian Leibert discusses that “autonomous vehicles, complemented by car services such as Lyft and Uber, could make it preferable and more affordable to ride with robots rather than get a driver’s license.” Autonomous transit is projected to represent around 25% of the world by 2035.

With growth like this in all industries and verticals, people will have a hard time securing work and contributing to the economy. Based on an article in USA Today, author Paul Davidson explains that “half of all work activities globally have the technological potential to be automated” and “automation could destroy as many as 73 million U.S. jobs by 2030.”

Jobs that are most receptive to evolving with technology tend to be low wage jobs, as flipping burgers can easily be replaced with a robot. On the other hand, workers with higher wages are more secure with their job when considering the automation boom. This will lengthen the bridge from the rich and the poor, creating less opportunity for low-income households and a raise unemployment rate.

With automation at our fingertips, the government will have to support the increased amount of low-income households. Government spending will adjust their spending in ways to boost economic growth.

My take on this: robots are undoubtedly going to fill positions that humans currently hold. This will take away many jobs available for humans, but the technology boost will also allow for new jobs in every field. Someone needs to manage the production of these automated systems. Engineers must create the systems. Doctors must find the problem to initiate a solution. Human life is going to be more seamless but far more complex.

The economy will suffer, at first, trying to adjust to the shock of unemployment. But, as technology becomes more developed, people will find ways to generate income – which might be unconventional compared to the current state of the job market – and further support the economy. In the long run, the boost in technology calls for a more developed nation which leads to a successful economy. Check out China and the U.S.—two very distinguished locations when looking at GDP and growth. These two countries are also ahead of the game in the automation space.

It’s not a coincidence that when I Googled, “what date does the new” the sentence was completed with the top option, “iPhone come out?” in my search bar. Since 2007, when Apple released the first iPhone, the pressure to stay up to date within the entrepreneurial cultural push became a reality. Though only less than 3 years ago I purchased my iPhone 6s, I feel out of date when I become the only person at a table without a 10 or an X.

Apple releases their new products typically every September, which means that individuals either save money in preparation to annually invest in Apple or like my family, we wait for the new iPhone to come out to buy the older versions because when new products release, previous product prices decrease. But how are the prices of an iPhone, indicators of our economy and why are these pieces of technology so vital to our lives?

In 2008 and 2009 when the United States was in a recession, Apple released their first iPhone and reported a strong first-quarter profit which shocking in a time of financial turmoil.

Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/14948/apple-iphone-revenue/

“Where many of the other consumer-facing companies are missing their expectations and seeing their revenues decline, Apple continues to see growth,” said David Bailey, an analyst at Goldman Sachs in 2008. “It [Apply] is gaining market share in every category, and given the premium price of their products, that is a significant achievement.” Though Apple had been preparing for their iPhone launch for years and could not have predicted the state of the economy at their iPhone launch date, they still took the risk and had the confidence to release a luxury product to the market. But, the opportunity for people to invest back into the economy by purchasing technology and supporting innovation and entrepreneurship to drive growth, is what may have led Apple to be the biggest corporation and most popularly used technology worldwide.

During the recession holiday season, Apple sold 4.36 million iPhone 3Gs, compared to today where they sold 29 million iPhone units in their fourth quarter in 2018. Which is a substantially higher revenue than all of Apple’s competitors in the smartphone market in the United States.

Source:https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-sales-history-chart-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T

It is important to take into consideration a companies market size across various countries over a period of time to indicate their unanimous success. Though Apple sales have hit an all-time high this year in the United States, according to Business Insider, Analysts at UBS expect iPhone sales to continue to drop for Chinese consumers. Chinese consumers have flocked to more affordable domestic brands over the past three years, such as devices from local brands like Xiaomi, Huawei, Oppo, and Vivo. Which resulted in Apple investing $500 million this year in research of the Chinese market.

Source:https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-sales-region-china-chart-2017-3

According to Forbes, Apple continues to dominate the smartphone profit pool by capturing 51% of the segment’s revenue and I will continue to feel societal pressure to upgrade my iPhone 6S to an X. But, because Apple will systematically reduce their prices so anyone who cannot afford to drop $999 on an X, can continue to invest and purchase their products, and I will most likely be purchasing a new phone as well.

 

Sources:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/30/evercore-raises-apple-price-target-to-125-sees-bigger-iphones-leading-to-bigger-sales

https://www.statista.com/chart/7800/apples-quarterly-iphone-sales/

It’s a Monday morning. Usually it takes five alarms to make you move even an inch out of bed, but today you feel different — you feel good. You open the curtains to let the light in. Those annoying birds actually sound pretty nice. After drinking a fresh cup of coffee, you open your closet and put on your best suit. You’re feeling confident, so you pick out your brightest tie. After all, it is a pink tie kind of day.

Believe it or not, that pink tie alone can say a lot about the economy.

According to a report by Forbes, many investors pay attention to subtle variations in product sales and use them as tools to determine the state of the economy. Known simply as economic indicators, these tools may take cues from social behaviors and product sales — in this case, fashion trends — to predict future economic performance.

As reported by Forbes, how men generally decide to wear their ties can point toward ups and downs in regard to the job market as a whole. When things are looking up for the economy, many workers decide to express their happiness through their wardrobes — that means brighter colors, like pink and fuschia. Width counts as well: When there’s a gloomy forecast for jobs, thinner ties — paired with dark, somber colors — become more popular among the workforce. According to chief economist for Regions Bank, “Men’s ties are a leading indicator because they’re a very inexpensive way to change a wardrobe.”

For example, Business Insider states that one of the most notable instances of this phenomenon occured in 2007, when rumors of layoffs in the job market caused a spike in tie sales — specially for thinner ties. The reported reasoning was that, as their positions became less and less secure, many men wanted to show their bosses that they were serious, dedicated employees.

The existence of this indicator, along with many others just as bizarre, brings up an interesting discussion on the impact the general economy has on our daily lives. That something as minor as a wardrobe change can be used to predict the state of the job market proves how economically oriented the average citizen can be. In addition, there is also something to be said in widespread these changes can occur in such a short amount of time: International popular culture is becoming more interconnected than ever, and it can have unprecedented intersections with economic trends as well.

If anything, the prevalence of this trend should teach us to take a closer look at how changing social behavior can reflect a similarly changing economy. Whether they’re analyzed through the “Buttered Popcorn Index” or the “Hot Waitress Economic Index,” shifts in consumer culture can become fairly obvious if one only looks for them — All it takes is a trained, and sometimes fashionable, eye.

And for all our sakes, hopefully things will start to look pink.

 

The volatility of the housing market has long been a reflection of American economic activity, itself a somewhat unstable force. The “New Residential Construction Report” expressed data surrounding how many residential construction projects have begun within a certain time versus the number of issued building permits. Analyzed and reported on by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, housing starts, building permits and housing completions are key economic indicators in considering the housing market not only as a system of vending, but also one of constant (or interrupted) development, reflecting not only national financial welfare but also consumer confidence.

In March of 2018, Time Magazine characterized housing starts as the indicator responsible for predicting every recession since 1960—going on to say that a 7% fall in housing starts was a warning signal that, despite what other economic indicators reflected, the rate of economic advancement was perhaps not as lofty as initially believed. This is to say that, while GDP grows, a falling housing market cannot be overlooked. Housing and its embedded costs—building, purchase, renovations, and maintenance—account for a sixth of the total GDP. This influence is only heightened by the reverberant efficacy of the housing industry. An analysis of housing to some extent determines the supply of preexisting homes on the market, as well as the calibration of mortgage lending and homeowners insurance. An increase in housing starts signals an increase in demand for the construction industry, and their suppliers. It is also indicative of an increase in demand and potential employment for commercial ventures marketing household appliances, furnishings, and other home improvement goods. Home Depot, for example, witnessed a 15% decrease in shares between January and March of 2018, despite earning and sales reports that well exceeded expectations—while it might seem bold to define this decline as a projection of a weakening broad economy, there is a truth to the coupling of commercial performance and economic trajectory. Stores like Home Depot are perhaps somewhat niche markets, but an analysis of business cycle “pivot points” (a daily average high, low and closing prices at the end of the market day) and the performance of housing is a good ledger for considering the agency of housing as a critical economic indicator.

Perhaps one of the greatest draws towards housing as a vital economic indicator is its capacity to guage and budget for future trends. Terri Spath, chief investment officer for Sierra Investment Management, considers housing starts as a “terrific leading indicator of the economy.” Given the many month commitment a buyer is faced with when investing in a new construction housing project, potential homebuyers will often hold off, erring on the side of caution if there is potential for an imminent economic downturn. “Who wants to engage in the biggest investment of their life — buying a house — if they’re worried about losing their job?”, asks Sam Stoval, chief investment strategist for CFRA research firm. This sentiment, above all, is a demonstration of consumer confidence in full effect. While housing is a somewhat pigeonholed factor, customer optimism and trust in the stability of their jobs, the security of their personal finances, and the overall quality (and longevity) of the economy all serve broaden the threshold of area of consideration, speaking volumes to both housing’s influence and reactivity.

That being said, the use of housing starts as an economic indicator is not without its drawbacks. It is, at times, an expression of incomplete data, drawing only from one specified area of the economy, despite the centrality of housing as contingent on other, more holistic economic sects. With a high rate of differentiation and modulation across different regions of the US, weather also takes a somewhat unexpected hold over the discriminate variability of housing starts in different areas of the country, as do the diverse range of sub-economies within these variant regions. A case can also be made for the oversight of this data, as it considers numeric  statistical data without acknowledging quality and size of homes—another potential indicator of consumer confidence, given the fluctuant commitment of signing on to build a one story home in a development versus a privately contracted compound. However, while housing starts alone are inconclusive when considering the broader economic welfare of the country, they are an integral part of a cause-and-effect system, impacting employment, spending, loans and insurance, and indicating not only a general sense of the economy, but a more specific declaration of consumer assurance.

 

SOURCES

https://www.northerntrust.com/insights-research/detail?c=deafd74fb1792c12488100138c985da3

 

http://time.com/money/5202597/economic-indicator-housing-market-stocks/