Yotta Point

Whisk - the Open Table of Car Ride Services

Part of an Entrepreneur Q&A Series [see past Q&As here: GLTYR]

Whisk (http://www.whisk.me) is a startup currently based in New York City that aims to change the way transportation providers offer, and customers use, car ride services. It has a few competitors such as Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, and Hailo although their business models are different. Whisk was founded by three people - Michael Ibrahim (CEO), Ram Trichur (President), and Vivek Chandran (CTO). Ram happens to be a close relative - so I did a Q&A with him about what he and his team are trying to do with Whisk.

Yottapoint: What is Whisk?

Ram: We are an on-demand ride service. Customers can request a ride through their smart phone and control the entire ride experience through the Whisk App. We are also quickly becoming the go-to technology platform for the industry, transforming the way in which current car service operators run their business.

Yottapoint: Why did you pick this name? I noticed there are a number of other small companies with the same name [Whisk (NYC), Whisk (SF), SF Whisk] - do you think this might make it difficult for people to reach you or learn more about your services?

Ram: We had a healthy debate about that! A couple of things influenced our decision. In the context of moving people, the name intuitively conveys taking someone to their destination quickly. We were also able acquire a nice domain (http://whisk.me) which builds on that sentiment. We also felt that a discoverable brand is less important for a mobile only service ...once someone has the App on the phone, it becomes a habit, and a majority of new customer acquisition comes from existing customer referrals and press mentions (vs. Googling for something generic like "car service"). There was of course the downside that searching for Whisk on the app store will be a tough fight for relevance ....we are happy that after just a few months now we are the top result on the Apple app-store and the second result on Google-play store if you type in Whisk.

Yottapoint: How/why did you come up with the idea for Whisk?

Ram: The co-founders of Whisk are New Yorkers. Though we have a good public transportation system, getting a cab in NYC is difficult especially if the weather is bad, you have young kids or it is the notorious "shift change time" for taxis. Going in a taxi is also not a very pleasant experience always. You are cramped for room, some drivers are just rude, and if you have a problem - all you can do is call 311. My colleague and I at McKinsey discussed this in late 2012. We realized that there were other well-funded players in the market - but after much research, we concluded that the market was still nascent and there was a tremendous opportunity to partner with the industry to build something really big.

Yottapoint: Do you operate only in NYC right now? If so, any plans to expand to other cities?

Ram: NYC is 40% of the ground transportation market in the US. We are well on our way to establishing a solid base here. In the next several months we will be expanding to a few other metros.

Yottapoint: You seem to have several competitors – Uber being the big one, but also Lyft, Sidecar, Hailo. Can you help us understand the key differences between Whisk and these other services?

Some Readings on Income and Wealth Inequality and Intergenerational Mobility

I have been trying to develop a deeper understanding on the topic of income and wealth inequality and wanted to bookmark for myself some pertinent research and posts.

Josh Barro [Business Insider]

• 95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1% — Here's What That Really Means
• David Brooks is Wrong About Inequality
• Sorry, Libertarians — Inequality Does Matter

Andrew Berg, Jonathan Ostry [IMF]

• Equality and Efficiency
• [with Tsangarides] Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth
• Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Matthew O'Brien [The Atlantic]

• Why The 1% Don't Feel Rich

Miles Corak [University of Ottawa]

• Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility; PDF
• How to Slide Down the ‘Great Gatsby Curve’: Inequality, Life Chances, and Public Policy in the United States

Kathleen Geier [Inequality Matters]

• Ten facts you should know about global economic inequality

Colin Gordon [Dissent]

• The Computer Did It? Technology and Inequality
• Who Pays? Taxes and American Inequality

David Howell [The New School]

Disaster Costs, GDP and Climate Change

Roger Pielke Jr. recently published an article in Nate Silver's new 538 website titled Disasters Cost More Than Ever But Not Because of Climate Change. You should click the link and read his entire piece but, his thesis is essentially the following:

1. The cost of disasters tied to extreme events is indeed rising rapidly - but once you normalize this to the increase in the wealth of the world as represented by global GDP (we own a lot more "stuff" now than before) - the trend basically vanishes
2. Disasters lead to high loss of life where property damage is the lowest and highest property damage in places with lowest loss of life. As examples he cites the following: "U.S. hurricanes, for example, are responsible for 58 percent of the increase in the property losses in the Munich Re global dataset" and "Consider that since 1940 in the United States 3,322 people have died in 118 hurricanes that made landfall. Last year in a poor region of the Philippines, a single storm, Typhoon Hayain, killed twice as many people."
3. Richer countries are in a better position to protect people's lives in times of disasters at the expense of higher property losses. He says: "As countries become richer, they are better able to deal with disasters — meaning more people are protected and fewer lose their lives. Increased property losses, it turns out, are a price worth paying"

His article was roundly criticized by some well known climate scientists, as summarized by Emily Atkin at Think Progress (additional discussion in this post by Laurence Lewis at Daily Kos). The crux of the criticism as I see it:

1. Improvements to deal with disasters (e.g., newer building codes and improved construction, better forecasting, better preparedness and responses) over the years reduces disaster damages/costs (lives and property) and this is not properly reflected in Pielke's assertions - this has been pointed out to him before, yet he continues to publish his misleading claim
2. Unlike Pielke's claims that somehow climate change is not causing an increasing frequency of extreme events, there are several situations where this is in fact the case

Pielke responded to these critiques in an email to Think Progress (same link as above):

GLTYR - a New App for C2C, C2B, B2C, B2B Multi-Media Communication

Part of an Entrepreneur Q&A Series [see other Q&As here: Whisk]

UPDATE on 3/9/14: Added some responses from Sudhakar to user questions in the comments section.

I was recently catching up with my good friend - the multi-talented Subra Sudhakar - a tech industry veteran, CEO of the startup School Cues and an accomplished Indian classical musician who has played with leading Indian musicians over the years. As it turned out, I discovered he had just co-founded another startup - called GLTYR. Having heard from him about it, I checked it out myself and was impressed because I think this product will be a catalyst for more advanced personalized video/audio/text communication in the coming years. Here is a Q&A I did with Sudhakar about his new product/company (with minor edits for grammar/clarity).

Yotta Point: What is GLTYR?

Sudhakar: GLTYR (pronounced “Glitter”) is a mobile app that helps create and present your message to make an emotional connection with your audience. Your message comes alive with a picture, audio and video and up to 900 characters of text. What makes this app even more exciting is that a GLTYR message can be created and sent out in as little as three to five minutes (depending on the length of your message) - entirely through the app.

Yotta Point: How did you come up with the idea for GLTYR?

Sudhakar: The genesis for GLTYR came from a combination of five technology and behavioral trends –

1. The average human attention span is two minutes or less in absorbing and retaining information.
2. Content will ultimately end up being created and consumed on a mobile device, rendering the desktop obsolete in several scenarios or applications
3. The world is going mobile so quickly that there is a greater probability that a coffee shop owner in a remote village in Mongolia will use a smart phone and not a computer to create and send out quick messages / digital fliers that would drive his brand across the globe in less than a few minutes.
4. There are several fields where the concurrent confluence of audio-video-visual-text integrated with human creativity is required to make a strong emotional connection with the audience. These fields or areas include commercials, dating profiles, resumes, food, performing arts, marketing fliers, greetings, invitations, business cards, elevator pitches, value propositions etc.
5. The cost of producing audio-video-visual commercials is prohibitively expensive for the average consumer or a small business. The cost of purchasing, filling out and sending greeting cards is also getting more expensive. Plus, these cards are unemotional, with a limited shelf life on the refrigerator door. We would like to make it ridiculously affordable for people to create messages / commercials / cards / resumes on the fly which integrates picture, audio, video and text and push it out in less than a few minutes to thousands of people.

Yotta Point: Why should anyone consider using GLTYR? Aren’t there other apps out there which have similar capabilities?

Unionization and Jobs/Wages in Today's Economy

Evan Soltas’ blog posts and chart, following his Bloomberg View article ("Is the U.S. Better Off Without Unions?"), are quite interesting and worth reading. I tend to agree with his observations on why unionization has declined in the US (and apparently other developed countries) in the second half of the 20th century and I also question the focus on unions as a key method of addressing unemployment and wage pressure challenges faced by US workers. However, I am not convinced that Soltas' ideas to address the issue are that effective. So, I'd like to offer a different perspective on this subject given my background as an executive in the Silicon Valley tech industry. This perspective focuses on the after-effects of stock-based compensation on various macro factors.

First, some context. In Silicon Valley, tech labor has tended to be non-unionized for quite some time. Additionally, over the last two decades, I've seen software design, hardware manufacturing, hardware design and other functions move outside of the US (I have also been in positions where I have moved certain jobs overseas). The reasons are simple. There are qualified workers who can do these jobs outside the US, typically at a much lower cost. Moreover, when a company's competitors move jobs or are located overseas in cheaper labor markets, for financially competitive reasons the company ends up having to do the same. Additionally, some of the larger tech companies that sell directly in non-US end markets need workers in those regions. Despite this trend, and despite many tech jobs being non-unionized, Silicon Valley has managed to maintain a decent jobs picture (example) for well-paid employees - I think primarily because US tech companies continue to be at the forefront of driving significant innovation where more experienced US workers have an advantage over workers is job markets outside the US. My experience suggests that at least in Tech, where workers tend to be paid relatively well because of their skills, unionization has not been a significant factor in driving employment or wage trends. I can’t extrapolate from this to infer that the tech experience should be applied to every other industry but it is suggestive that we need to look for deeper explanations for increases in income inequality and decline in unionization in the US and other economies.

The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars: A Brief Review and Climate Change Discussion

I recently read Professor Michael Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars". There are several reviews of the book online, a couple of examples being Shawn Lawrence Otto's review at The Huffington Post and Jeff Masters' review at Wunderground. However, I found the book compelling, engaging and valuable on several fronts and felt it was worth making a few observations here. If you are a person who is not entirely familiar with the recent history and politics of climate science, it offers a highly readable and informative summary that captures some of the progress and setbacks over the last two decades or so. Mann's passion for climate science comes through very well in the book and in the process he also addresses in some detail the following aspects of climate change.

I. Scientific Process, Climate Politics & Denialism

1) The IPCC scientific process and rigor which is quite substantial to the point of making the reports somewhat conservative - despite the seepage of occasional errors into IPCC reports

2) The right role of true skepticism in scientific inquiry - and how this differs from the practice of climate change denial (or climate denial) that uses a combination of (a) a veneer of skepticism, (b) often incompetence in basic statistics and (c) the use of deliberately misleading data

• Mann cites several examples in his book; a perusal of blogs like Deltoid, Skeptical Science, Open Mind and others provides interminable, yet dark, amusement on this front

3) The slow but gradual evolution of scientific knowledge, a process that is self-correcting and generates better understanding over time

• Mann offers many interesting examples from the climate change field contrasting them with the typical demands of the blog/media/news cycle that might immediately trumpet a new research paper as if it almost single-handedly destroyed the scientific consensus, without waiting for the time-intensive scientific process to peer assessment, correction and learning

4) The role of the key players in the fossil-fuels sector - whose future assets, fuel reserves and stock prices are at significant risk if meaningful climate change policy actions are taken - and that of other ideologically aligned wealthy donors in funding climate denialism

5) The deplorable, often personal attacks on climate scientists who publicly speak or write about the serious manifestations and consequences of climate change through willful misrepresentation of their or others' work and/or false accusations of fraud or misconduct

• As Mann shows, these attacks are usually fronted by certain politicians (usually Republicans close to the fossil fuel industry), a handful of scientists who are typically not climate science experts, and often by denialist writers, bloggers and pseudo-scientists. Mann also suggests that the manufactured controversy has often coincided with time periods when the U.S. Congress was poised to pass climate change legislation - thereby making it easier to kill such legislation.
• The attacks and their consequences are examined in much detail given Mann's personal experience and the character assassination campaign he and some of his peers have faced over the years; he particularly explores the controversy over the "hockey stick" and the Climategate episode
• Mann makes reference to another excellent, must-read book on this particular topic - "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway

6) The increasing use of blogs (e.g., RealClimate) by climate scientists to communicate the science to the public and media, and push back in real time on false, distorted or misleading presentations of climate data

II. Science of Climate Change

7) The role that various natural (e.g., solar activity, volcanoes, various oceanic oscillations that operate over multi-year, decadal, multi-decadal or multi-century periods - such as the multi-year oscillation called ENSO or El-Nino/La Nina) and human-induced/anthropogenic factors (CO₂, sulfur dioxide - SO₂, etc.) play in influencing global warming and climate change

• Mann walks readers through how different factors can affect climate and temperature in different ways, thereby providing a nuanced discussion of climate change and warming, which is often missing or understated in websites arguing against the evidence for anthropogenic global warming

8) The role of temperature proxies - such as tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, etc. - in the estimation of local, regional and global average temperatures in past centuries and millennia when accurate temperature measurements were not available

• In particular, Mann devotes considerable effort to explain the famous "hockey stick" graph (which has since been independently validated by both the National Academy of Sciences as well as recent work by NOAA's NCDC) and discusses topics such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period, urban-heat island (UHI) effect, and others which play an important role in climate change debates

9) The use of statistical frameworks such as principal component analysis (PCA) in the understanding of underlying phenomena and variables driving temperature changes

Mann's book tries to cover all that and more and does a really nice job overall in giving the reader an expansive view of the nuanced subject of climate change, while passionately conveying the real urgency of acknowledging the dangers of ongoing and future warming and the need for immediate action. I highly recommend this book.

In terms of where the book could have been improved, I would suggest the following thoughts for Mann and other climate scientists to consider. Unless someone is an avid follower of the field of climate change and global warming, it is difficult to grasp the nuances and subtleties inherent in understanding climate, weather and the variables that can cause them to shift. I think Mann's book can be further improved, perhaps in his next edition, by more explicitly delving into common points of confusion for people I have talked to, such as:

• Dueling reports of record heat and record cold (recent examples): This confusion might persist because typical discussions on global warming, even by scientists, fail to adequately inform people that warming refers only to averages and that record heat and cold can co-exist in a warming world as long as record heat events significantly outnumber record cold events as the average temperature rises
• Reports attributing certain seemingly contradictory climatic and meteorological events to global warming (e.g., less snow v. blizzards, flooding v. drought, etc.): It's important that scientists invest more time in developing communication to explain how both droughts and severe flooding could result from warming, that both blizzards and reduced snow can be a consequence of warming, etc.
• Why seemingly modest increases in global temperature (e.g., 0.8 degrees C) should result in significant increases in extreme events: It wasn't until the excellent work of Hansen et al. in 2012 did a clear framework become available to average readers like me to explain to others that a small shift in averages can lead to a large increase in probability of 3-sigma, 4-sigma and beyond temperatures, which in turn can lead to more extreme events over time, relative to past experience
• Lack of clear understanding of the role of additional factors that cause otherwise CO₂-influenced temperature changes to be non-monotonic: The recent work by Skeptical Science is very welcome in this context but it is rare to see scientists use simplified means of communication on such an important topic

Additionally, I would like to urge Mann and his colleagues/peers to invest more time in discussing & explaining the role of the potent greenhouse gas methane (CH₄) and the pros and cons of migrating our energy use from fuels like coal to natural gas, especially given the increasing concerns of methane leakage during natural gas extraction.

Finally, while I very much like blogs like Real Climate, climate scientists need to do a better job of communicating their findings and implications in plain English. Again, Skeptical Science is doing a fantastic job on this and newer initiatives like Climate Communication are welcome and overdue but scientists need to be more tuned to this need going forward.

Deutsche Bank's Jobless Claims Indicator is Not Very Helpful in Predicting Recessions

Sam Ro at Business Insider points out:

According to most experts, the U.S. is still growing. However, some experts like [ECRI's] Lakshman Achuthan and [SocGen's] Albert Edwards argue that the U.S. is in a recession.

[...]

But Riccadonna and the economics team at Deutsche Bank have an incredibly reliable indicator of recessions.

They call it the "rule of 10%" and it's an interpretation of the U.S. weekly initial jobless claims. Riccadonna explains:

Our rule of thumb is as follows: In the past, when jobless claims backed up by 10% or more from the prior quarter’s average, in all but one instance (Q1 1967), the economy was on the brink of recession. Thus, the rule has proven to be fairly reliable over the past several decades.

Here's his chart showing the record of this indicator:

Using the above chart, Sam Ro concludes:

So based on the recent quarter's average jobless claims and the current trend of jobless claims, Riccadonna notes that that "rule of 10%" would suggest we are not heading into recession.

Riccadonna's and Ro's conclusion is unwarranted.

As I explained in a series of tweets, I don't know if we are currently in a recession or not, but Riccadonna's chart is not really useful to assess that at all. The reason is simple. Riccadonna and Ro already acknowledge that the above indicator incorrectly predicted a recession in 1967. However, they didn't notice that the chart failed to predict the start of the 2008 recession using their 10% threshold. If you look closely at the above chart, you will notice that at the time the 2008 recession began (or when the economy was "on the brink of recession"), the indicator was up ~5% q/q (a dip from a slightly higher number in the prior quarter), much less than the 10% q/q threshold cited by Riccadonna. It only rose to ~10% some months into the recession. So, the use of the 10% threshold by Riccadonna is incorrect and artificial. The correct threshold would be closer to ~5% - and if we use that threshold, the chart is revealed as basically not that useful because it would have predicted a recession in many more years that were not recession years. Not to mention the indicator is close to the ~5% q/q threshold right now.

Reads for June 24

It's been a while since my last round-up of interesting posts, so here is a reading list for this weekend (updated).

Economics & Finance

• Henry Blodget at Business Insider: Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low
• Ben Cassel at Real Time Economics (WSJ): "Number of the Week: Corporations Not Hoarding Cash"
• Eric Platt at Business Insider: America's Debt Levels Are Falling To Pre-Crisis Levels - but also see David Cay Johnston at Reuters looking at income as well: "America's Long Slope Down" and Mish Shedlock's comments at Global Economic Analysis
• Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge: The Chart That Scares The "1%" The Most
• Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider: Yesterday's Philly Fed Report Implies A Horrendous Jobs Report
• Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider: The Difference Between Obama's First Term And Bush's First Term In One Devastating Chart
• New Deal Democrat at Business Insider: Inflation Is Under Control, And It's A Sign Of Bad Things
• Zarathustra at Also Sprach Analyst: Quantitative easing and the (lack of) responses in bond yields
• Paul Krugman at NYT: Interest Rates: Varieties of Error
• Scott Barber at Alpha Now/Thomson-Reuters: "Crude Oil Futures Bouncing Near Their Lows of 2012" - has interesting charts comparing historical and recent behavior of oil vs. economic indicators and stocks; also see Sober Look's related analysis: "Crude oil vs. US equities: dislocation continues"
• Sober Look: "Dr. Copper Says Watch Out Below" & "Summer of 2011 Redux"
• Mark Thomas at Economist's View: Did Income Inequality Contribute to the Great Recession?
• Jie Jenny Zou at Real Time Economics (WSJ): Inequality Has Increased in Income and Consumption, Economists Argue [via]; here's the link to the paper by Attanasio, Hurst and Pistaferri: "The Evolution of Income, Consumption, and Leisure Inequality in The US, 1980-2010" [and a related post on income inequality across recent Presidents here; links here and here worth a look as well]
• David Cay Johnston at Reuters: "The Fortunate 400"
• Econompicdata: "Valuation Matters: Equities vs Bonds Edition"; "Dividend vs. Treasury Yields"; "Stocks For The Long Run?"
• Jared Bernstein at On The Economy: "CBO’s Long-Term Budget Outlook: What It’s Telling Us"
• Zarathustra at Also Sprach Analyst: "Coal inventory in various Chinese ports hit record highs" [also see Sober Look's post on this]
• Zarathustra at Also Sprach Analyst: "Is China massaging macro data? (Ans: Yes)"
• Sober Look: "India's Currency Spirals Out of Control" [see this older post as well]

Energy & Environment, Climate Change

• Climate Central: The Heat is On: U.S. Temperature Trends
• National Research Council: Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012)
• Climate Central has a neat interactive online tool that allows you to assess the impact of sea-level rise on your coastal town or city
• Stefan at Real Climate: "What makes sea-level rise?"
• Andrew Freedman at Climate Central: "Did Global Warming Set Stage for Duluth Flooding?"

Healthcare

• Lane Kenworthy at Consider the Evidence: "Is rising obesity a product of income inequality and economic insecurity?"; "Why the Surge in Obesity?"
• Duff Wilson and Janet Roberts at Reuters: "Special Report: How Washington went soft on childhood obesity"

Miscellaneous

• Elizabeth Flock at US News/Washington Whispers: "Five Charts That Show How Our Democracy Isn't Working"

That's it for today.

Stocks and Bonds Diverge

UPDATED 2/22/12

A few people have been discussing this topic of late and it's worth a mention in the context of what to expect vis-a-vis US economic growth in the coming months.

The observation is that as market confidence in a US economic recovery has become stronger, stock markets have shot upwards but bond yields have not. One would normally expect bond yields to also go up as money moves from bonds to stocks during economic recoveries. This "anomaly" is interesting and worth watching.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge (1/30/12): "Yields Plunge Most In 3 Months As Equity-Debt Divergence Remains"

Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider (2/7/12): "PRESENTING: The Great Market Disconnect Seen All Around The Globe"

Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider (2/18/12): "This Is STILL The Most Glaring Anomaly In The Market"

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge (2/20/12): "As Everything Disconnects And Everything Is Soaring, Morgan Stanley Issues A Warning"

[Also worth a look - this Aug 2011 post  by Felix Salmon at Reuters: "Chart of the day: The great earnings-yield divergence"]

It's also noteworthy that stock market trading volumes have been noticeably lower in recent times - and it's happening at a time where revenue and earnings growth has also declined (outside of Apple) and upside guidance from companies is also on the decline.

P.S. Joe Weisenthal has an observation from Doug Kass that there is also a marked divergence between the S&P 500 vs. the ratio of Dow Transports to the S&P 500. Transports, I would presume are at least in part affected by rising oil prices at a time when overall world oil consumption has been on the decline. Additionally, the potential impact of QE and liquidity type actions on stock markets and commodities like oil can't be emphasized enough.

Do Surveys of Consumer Confidence Provide Insight Into Actual Economic Activity?

Sober Look has two good, worth reading posts - "The story of two risk indices" and "The jump in U Michigan sentiment index is driven by consumer expectations". I'll try to return to the first post later but I thought I'd comment on the second one - which is about indicators tied to what we generally refer to as 'consumer sentiment' or 'consumer confidence'. SL makes some good points about these indices but he does not mention a larger point that I want to call out here - which is that these indices very clearly are not at all good gauges of absolute economic activity.

1) Let's start with SL's first point that the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's survey of consumer sentiment registered a reading in August 2011 that was as low as the reading in November 2008 - which, as SL says is "...a bit surprising and not at all intuitive, with anecdotal evidence suggesting that 08 felt far worse than 2011".

He's completely right about the non-intuitive nature of index values - but it is also completely non-intuitive when you look at non-anecdotal evidence. For example:

• The change in real GDP in Q4 2008 was -8.9% whereas in Q3 2011, GDP changed by +1.8%
• Retail sales changed at an annual rate of  more than -10% in Q4 2008 compared to +6 to 8% in Q3 2011
• Industrial production and capacity utilization were much lower in Q4 2008 compared to Q3 2011
• The economy was losing jobs at the average rate of ~600,000 jobs/month in Q4 2008 as opposed to gaining on average ~150,000 jobs a month in Q3 2011

So, what exactly is the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment measuring?

2) Second, SL adds:

What drove the sentiment index to levels comparable to 2008? The index actually has two components: the Current Conditions Index and the Consumer Expectations Index. And it was the "expectations" component that pushed the whole index to this low point. In fact according to U Michigan, when it came to consumer expectations, the "end of the world" was coming in August of 2011 - a point on the index that was in fact lower than the expectations measure in 2008 (as shown in the chart below). This is puzzling. Were consumers reacting to all the market driven media frenzy in August that wasn't as prevalent in 2008? Were consumers not as focused on the state of the financial markets in the past as they are now?

On the other hand the "current conditions" component did not dive anywhere close to its 08 lows, which is more in line with other economic indicators.

So, basically, according to this measure of consumer sentiment, in August 2011 the Consumer Expectations index fell lower than the lowest value in 2008! Yet, all the above indicators measuring the real health of the economy (see above) were much worse in Q4 2008 than in Q3 2011 and Q4 2011. How is it that, not just the overall consumer sentiment index, but also its consumer expectations component, seems so out of whack with macroeconomic conditions (current and immediate future)?

3) Third, SL discusses another indicator on consumer confidence: