One of the driving forces of populism is this very keen sense of dissonance. We are told one thing only to observe another, with the basis for that first thing being little more than the credentials of the person making the claim. If Janet Yellen proclaims consumer spending as “solid”, we are supposed to take her at her word without question. The whole system is predicated on a logical fallacy.

The word itself, “solid”, is meant to be subjective particularly in this context. It is not an official measure and therefore itself a direct conclusion drawn from evidence. The weight of it is nothing more than Yellen’s title as Fed Chair. That is always a problem, but has been more so over the last ten years.

Twice a year every year, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve drives up to Capitol Hill and formally reports to Congress. Given our current circumstances, these ceremonial affairs are lent a great deal of mainstream scrutiny as the public tries to parse the smallest scraps of unanticipated deviations from the carefully laid script. In many ways, this is a rerun of the late 1990’s dot-com bubble, but in reverse. When Alan Greenspan would testify, even his briefcase would be subjected not to so much scrutiny but reverence for what the Fed would not have to do, as the St. Louis Fed embarrassingly confirms. When Janet Yellen testifies, the world waits with bated breath for her to endorse instead the smallest little something that the Fed might have got right.

In her Humphrey Hawkins testimony to Congress in February 2017, Yellen declared:

Consumer spending has continued to rise at a healthy pace, supported by steady income gains, increases in the value of households’ financial assets and homes, favorable levels of consumer sentiment, and low interest rates.

“Healthy” is, of course, a synonym for “solid.” This decree about US consumers is one that she has made before, many, many times, including in June last year: