The New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey unexpectedly ticked slightly higher (0.5) in August to 4.5, beating the forecast. New orders increased after two straight months of declines.
Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents said conditions improved over the month, while 22% reported that conditions had worsened.
Prior
Consensus Forecast
Forecast Range
Actual
General Business Conditions Index – Level
4.3
2.5
-2.5 to 6.0
4.8
The new orders index climbed back above zero to 6.7. The shipments index increased slightly to 9.3. Unfilled orders fell for a third straight month, while delivery times were steady and inventories rose for the first time since April.
Group of friends sitting outdoors with shopping bags; several people holding smartphones and tablets. (Photo: AdobeStock/ OneInchPunch/PPD)
The advance estimate for U.S. retail sales came in at $523.5 billion in July, an increase of 0.7% (±0.5%) and more than double the consensus forecast.
Prior
Revised
Consensus Forecast
Forecast Range
Actual
Retail Sales – M/M ∆
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
-0.3% to 0.5%
0.7%
Retail Sales less autos – M/M ∆
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
-0.2% to 0.6%
1.0%
Less Autos & Gas – M/M ∆
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4% to 0.5%
0.9%
Control Group – M/M ∆
0.7%
0.3%
0.3% to 0.3%
1.0%
In another indication of strong consumer spending, U.S. retail sales are 3.4% (±0.7%) above July 2018. Total sales for May 2019 to July 2019 were up 3.3% (±0.5%) from the same period a year ago.
The May 2019 to June 2019 percent change was revised from up 0.4% (±0.5%) to up 0.3% (±0.1%).
Retail trade sales were up 0.6% (±0.5%) from June 2019, and 3.4% (±0.7%) a year ago. Nonstore retailers were up 16.0% (±1.4%) and miscellaneous stores were up 6.0% (±4.6%) from last year.
U.S. jobless claims graph on a tablet screen. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The Labor Department said initial jobless claims came in at a seasonally adjusted 222,000 for the week ending August 10, missing the forecast. The 4-week moving average came in at 213,750, an increase of 1,000.
Prior
Prior Revised
Consensus Forecast
Forecast Range
Actual
Initial Jobless Claims – Level
209 K
211 K
208 K
205 K to 218 K
220 K
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate remained unchanged at a very low 1.2% for the week ending August 3.
No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending July 27.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending July 27 were in Puerto Rico (2.5), New Jersey (2.4), Connecticut (2.1), Pennsylvania (1.9), California (1.8), Rhode Island (1.8), Alaska (1.6), Massachusetts (1.6), Illinois (1.5), and New York (1.4).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending August 3 were in Washington (+976), New Jersey (+940), Pennsylvania (+898), Texas (+650), and South Carolina (+565), while the largest decreases were in Illinois (-2,809), California (-2,397), Michigan (-685), West Virginia (-127), and New York (-115).
Refinance Index Hit Highest Level Since July 2016, Up 196% Year-Over-Year
A graphic concept depicting a young family and a mortgage application for a home. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey surged for the week ending August 9, 2019 after climbing 5.3% last week.
The Market Composite Index gauging mortgage loan application volume soared a seasonally adjusted 21.7%. The Refinance Index increased 37 percent from the previous week to its highest level since July 2016. It was 196% higher year-over-year, or at this time one year ago.
“The 2019 refinance wave continued, as homeowners last week responded to extraordinarily low mortgage rates,” said Joel Kan, MBA’s Associate Vice President of Economic and Industry Forecasting. “Fears of an escalating trade war, combined with economic and geopolitical concerns, once again pulled U.S. Treasury rates lower.”
The refinance share of mortgage activity rose to 61.4% of total applications from 53.9%.
August 2
August 9
Composite Index – W/W ∆
5.3%
21.7%
Purchase Index – W/W ∆
-2.0%
2.0%
Refinance Index – W/W ∆
12.0%
37.0%
The Purchase Index rose 2% from one week earlier.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming balances (≤ $484,350) fell 3.93% to its lowest level since November 2016. The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (> $484,350) fell 3.88% to its lowest level since November 2016.
Uncertainty Index for Small Business Fell 10 Points, Reversing Damage
A team of millennial business owners collaborating on an online project using a touchpad tablet in a modern office space. (Photo: AdobeStock/AYAimages)
The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index rose 1.4 points to beat expectations at 104.7, as rising uncertainly has been reversed and replaced with resilience. Expectations for business conditions, real sales, and expansion all made solid gains.
Prior
Consensus Forecast
Forecast Range
Actual
Small Business Optimism Survey
103.3
103.0
101.5 to 105.5
104.7
The Uncertainty Index fell 10 points, reversing a surge in June that reached the highest level since March 2017.
“While many are talking about a slowing economy and possible signs of a recession, the 3rd largest economy in the world continues to defy expectations, generating output, creating value, and expanding the economy,” said NFIB President and CEO Juanita D. Duggan.
“Small business owners want to grow their operations, and the only thing stopping them is finding qualified workers.”
In July, 57% of owners reported capital outlays. Of those cap-ex expenditures, 41% reported spending on new equipment (+1), 25% acquired vehicles (+3), and 16% improved or expanded facilities (+4).
Six percent (6%) purchased new buildings or land for expansion, and 12% kicked out for new fixtures and furniture.
However, the skills gap continues to persist as a major problem.
The NFIB Jobs Report found job creation slowed in July, falling to an average addition of 0.12 workers per firm. A record 26% of small business owners surveyed cited the skills gap — or, difficulty finding qualified workers — as their single most important business problem.
“Public Charge” Prohibition Has Long Been Ignored By Politicians
The Trump Administration will enforce longstanding policy prohibiting the issuance of green cards to immigrants deemed likely to receive social welfare. Those who are found likely to become dependent on public benefits will also be barred from changing their immigration status.
“Through the public charge rule, President Trump’s administration is reinforcing the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility,” Ken Cuccinelli, Acting-Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said.
The Immigration Nationality Act (INA) prohibits the entry of those “likely at any time to become a public charge,” defined as an alien receiving public benefits above a certain threshold.
Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The latter declared immigrants should “not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”
Bill Clinton signed them into law. However, the public charge policy adopted by the INA and subsequent legislation has gone unenforced for many years.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 58% of non-citizen households receive welfare, including 31% who receive cash welfare. That compares to 30% and 19% of native households, respectively.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs, 45% to 21%. The same is true for Medicaid at 50% to 23%, respectively.
The policy will start in October and caseworkers will still have discretion.
My collection of liberals who are honest on the issue of gun control is expanding.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
Most recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Now we have another addition to the list.
Alex Kingsbury of the New York Times acknowledges that politicians who want to ban so-called assault weapons are engaging in a futile exercise.
There are currently around 15 million military-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States. …Acknowledging the grim reality that we will live among these guns indefinitely is a necessary first step…calling for military-style rifles bans — as I have done for years — may be making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass. …Short of forced confiscation or a major cultural shift, our great-great-great-grandchildren will live side-by-side with the guns we have today and make tomorrow. …For context: In 2016 alone, more than one million military-style weapons were added to America’s existing civilian arsenal… America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country… The guns…are here to stay.
Interestingly, he acknowledges that civil disobedience is widespread, which I wrote about last month.
Not only is confiscation politically untenable — the compliance rates of gun owners when bans are passed are laughably low. The distribution of these weapons across society makes even their prohibition nearly impossible. In 1996, Australia launched a mandatory gun buyback of 650,000 military-style weapons. While gun ownership per capita in the country declined by more than 20 percent, today Australians own more guns than they did before the buyback.
The only way to cut the half-life of guns is to convince Americans that they’re safer without them. Yet with violent crime at historic lows and Americans still buying up semiautomatic rifles by the bushel.
Since we’re writing about the left and guns, let’s look at a Washington Times report about an unusual response to a gun ban in Boulder, Colorado.
Boulder’s newly enacted “assault weapons” ban is meeting with stiff resistance from its “gun-toting hippies,” staunch liberals who also happen to be devoted firearms owners. Only 342 “assault weapons,” or semiautomatic rifles, were certified by Boulder police before the Dec. 31 deadline, meaning there could be thousands of residents in the scenic university town of 107,000 in violation of the sweeping gun-control ordinance. …Current owners were given until the end of the year to choose one of two options: Get rid of their semiautomatics by moving them out of town, disabling them, or turning them over to police — or apply for a certificate with the Boulder Police Department… Judging by the numbers, however, most Boulder firearms owners have chosen to do none of the above, albeit quietly. …“The firearms community in Boulder — they may be Democrats but they love their firearms,” said Ms. Hollywood, herself a former Boulder resident.
Kudos to these citizens.
By the way, I also want to share this blurb from the story.
City Attorney Tom Carr has acknowledged that enforcing the ordinance will be a challenge, telling the Boulder Daily Camera that “there’s no circumstance where we go door-to-door and ask people if they’ve violated the law.”
Reminds me of the great video from Reason about the utter impracticality of actually trying to impose a gun ban.
Let’s close with some excerpts from a story in the Washington Free-Beacon.
They may not like Trump & McConnell but they love Smith & Wesson. …members of the Liberal Gun Club…traveled around central Florida shooting sporting clays, steel challenge matches, and even a few machineguns while planning how they’ll expand the club and use it to lobby against new gun bans… They were welcoming and friendly. They’re definitely liberals and they’re definitely gun lovers. …Pattie Hall, a member from rural Kentucky… “I wanted to be able to find other people who think like I do… I’m a very unusual shooter in the sense that you don’t find many liberals, many lesbians, or many vegetarians, and I’m all of those, but I still like guns.” …Pattie, Sean, and Keith all said they’d faced more backlash from the average liberal who found out they owned guns than from gun owners who found out they were liberals. In Pattie’s case, she said gun owners tended to be far more tolerant of her being gay than liberals are of her being a gun owner. …the club is hoping to show liberal gun owners are out there, they don’t want their guns taken away, and there are more of them than you probably think.
I guess all of these people should be honorary members of the honest liberals club.
Sadly, they’re presumably just a tiny minority of folks on the left.
Though hopefully they can act as missionaries and gain more converts.
You would think, for instance, that decent people on the left would look a the unsavory history of gun control – especially the way it was used to deny civil rights to minorities – and put individual rights ahead of government power.
Or that they would look at how various tyrants have disarmed their populations before launching genocides, and understand the value of an armed citizenry.
Heck, maybe they can look at the inverse relationship between crime and gun ownership over the past few decades and draw the logical conclusion.
Though if they were wise enough to recognize all these points, they’d presumably be libertarians!
President Donald Trump, center, Wayne LaPierre, right, and Chris Cox, left, at the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention in Atlanta, Ga. (Photo: NRA)
In the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Donald J. Trump is pushing for stricter gun control measures to include “red flag” laws and federal background checks.
Second Amendment supporters are calling the move his “read my lips” moment, a reference to George H.W. Bush breaking his promise and betraying his base over taxes.
In April 2017, President Trump delivered a rousing speech at the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention, making him the first president to return since 1983.
“You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you,” the president told supporters. “The 8 year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.”
“You have a true friend and champion in the White House.”
He became the first sitting Republican President of the United States to return to thank the gun rights group since Ronald Reagan in 1983.
H.W. Bush skipped the conference and was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992. He wrote a letter terminating his NRA membership in 1995 and blamed the loss on Ross Perot, who won 17% and 18% of self-identified Republican and conservative voters, respectively.
Consequently, Mr. Clinton blamed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban for costing Democrats control of both chambers that same year in the Republican Revolution. George W. Bush sent Vice President Dick Cheney to the annual conference.
President Trump returned with promises.
“Let me make a simple promise to the freedom loving people,” he said. “As your president I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Freedom is not a gift from the government. Freedom is a gift from God.”
The NRA, the National Association for Gun Rights and others have all come out against the president’s proposal. At least one has already publicly stated the group will not support the president’s re-election if he moves forward with the current proposals, which they all view as ineffective.
For now, we’ll leave the question of effectiveness for another day, one that will come sooner rather than later. We ran a machine learning voter file analysis to gauge the potential impact Second Amendment supporters have on the electorate in 11 key battleground states.
For the purpose of the model, Second Amendment supporters are defined as follows:
Individuals who have donated to a known pro-Second Amendment organization, or who have an interest in hunting, fishing, or shooting, as well as military history interest.
Of a 55,072,850 pool of voters in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a sizable 12,748,553 are Second Amendment supporters.
That’s approximately 23.1% of the total electorate in the aforementioned battleground states. The table below depicts each state, the count pertaining to Second Amendment supporters, the total sample size and the totals for each.
State
Count
Total Sample
Arizona
351,061
3,171,993
Florida
2,410,994
12,350,103
Iowa
515,138
1,747,205
Maine
214,693
909,616
Michigan
1,620,143
6,753,530
Minnesota
889,770
3,149,297
New Hampshire
187,906
852,109
North Carolina
1,099,257
5,818,104
Ohio
2,212,993
7,204,883
Pennsylvania
1,830,564
7,747,719
Wisconsin
1,416,034
5,368,291
Total
12,748,553
55,072,850
Of the total 12,748,553 voters identified as Second Amendment supporters in those key battlegrounds, 3,831,600, or 30.06%, are verifiably Republican. Another 2,874,532, or 22.55%, are inferred Republican.
Worth noting, the model’s “inferred” identification is very accurate. Verifiable and inferred Republicans make up nearly 53%.
Party
Count
Percent
Republican
3,831,600
30.06%
Inferred Republican
2,874,532
22.55%
Democrat
2,470,559
19.38%
Inferred Democrat
835,492
6.55%
Unaffiliated
1,275,744
10.01%
None/Others
1,460,626
11.45%
By gender, the pro-Second Amendment electorate is almost an identical reverse mirror image of the battleground electorate, 52% male and 48% female.
By household income, nearly 62% earn less than $100,000.
Put bluntly, the voter profile for Second Amendment supporters are Republican target voters, and there are a lot of them. Those who aren't identified as Republican or inferred Republican are, demographically, prime voters the GOP should be targeting for crossover votes.
Instead, they're talking about depressing a significant percentage of the battleground electorate that is chock full of core target voters. Winning a national election is about putting together a series of voting blocs to form a majority or the largest voting plurality.
Contrary to popular belief, voting coalitions do not exist or evolve in a vacuum. Supporting a certain public policy position that increases support among one voting bloc can and more often will impact the level of support among another.
Building a winning coalition is a constant give and take equation. A successful national campaign is simply one that maximizes support in the vacuum.
The above analysis of battleground voters illustrates how "pandering" and/or "appeasement" almost never results in a net increase in support, let alone maximizes it.
There is an argument that support for stricter gun control measures has risen since the last shootings, and that President Trump and Republicans have an opportunity to appeal to college educated voters.
Given the modeling, this argument is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, there are simply too many pro-Second Amendment voters to offset. This is a must-have bloc for a Republican presidential candidate.
Secondly, President Trump is not underperforming with college educated voters because he didn't support stricter gun control measures. It isn't their top issue. It's not even close.
Gun control is a temporary, marginal issue for these and most voters. Persuadable voters who support so-called "common sense" gun control do not vote on gun control.
Which hypothetical is more likely given the above data?
By supporting stricter gun control, President Trump will win over college educated voters who don't view it as a primary voting issue…
Or…
By supporting stricter gun control, President Trump will depress target voters who view opposing gun control as a primary voting issue.
Voters who do vote on gun control, vote to oppose it.
Those are the voters identified above who represent 23.1% of the total battleground electorate. Betraying promises made to any voting bloc risks depressing turnout, reducing margins and could very well end up costing Donald Trump re-election.
Updated
A common error made by political pundits is to assume others see the world as you do, and applying how you see the world to others. Also worth remembering, elections are won on the margins.
Let's take one state as an example -- Michigan.
In 2016, Donald Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since 1988. The statewide electorate cast 4,548,382 votes and his margin of victory was less than 10,000 votes.
The model identified 1,620,143 voters as Second Amendment supporters, of which 1,202,344 were Republicans, 323,981 were Democrats and 93,818 were unaffiliated.
The Democratic candidate doesn't need all of them to turn on Donald Trump. They just need a marginal percentage.
Depress them, and he will lose the state of Michigan. It's the same daunting story in Wisconsin, in which we currently view the president as the favorite.
Key with business words and rig equipment graphic icons relative to the oil and gas industry. (Photo: PPD/AdobeStock/JEGAS RA)
The Baker Hughes (BHI) North America Rig Count fell by 5 from 1079 to 1074 for the week ending August 8. The U.S. rig count was down 8 from last week to 934 and down 123 from one year ago. Canada rose by 9 from 118 to 127 and remained down 69 from one year ago.
Indicator
August 2
August 9
North American Rig Count
1079
1074
United States (U.S.)
942
934
Gulf of Mexico
22
23
Canada
137
140
Rigs classified as drilling for oil and in operation fell by 6 in the U.S. to 764, which is 105 rigs less than the 869 one year ago. Rigs classified as drilling for gas declined by 2 to 169, and are still 17 fewer than the 186 one year ago.
Rigs classified as drilling for oil in Canada gained 3 to 94, which is 46 less than the 140 in operation one year ago. Rigs classified as drilling for gas were flat at 46, which is now 23 less than the 69 in operation one year ago.
The Gulf of Mexico, which is a subset of the U.S. total, rose by 1 to 23 rigs. That’s 5 more rigs than the 18 in operation one year ago.
The Baker Hughes North America Rig Count tracks changes in the number of active operating oil and gas rigs on a weekly basis. Active rigs are essential for exploration and development.
The United States and Canada are separate components, and a separate count for the Gulf of Mexico is given as a subset of the U.S. total. The count includes only rigs that are significant users of oilfield services and supplies.
U.S. jobless claims graph on a tablet screen. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The Labor Department said initial jobless claims fell again to a seasonally adjusted 209,000 for the week ending August 3, a decline of 8,000 that beat the forecasts. The 4-week moving average rose slightly by 250 to 212,250.
Prior
Consensus Forecast
Forecast Range
Actual
Initial Jobless Claims
215 K
215 K
206 K to 218 K
209 K
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was unchanged at a very low 1.2% for the week ending July 27. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment declined by 15,000 during the week ending July 27 to 1,684,000.
The 4-week moving average was 1,687,250, a drop of 11,000 from 1,698,250.
The Labor Department said no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending July 20.
The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending July 20 were in Puerto Rico (2.5), New Jersey (2.4), Connecticut (2.2), Pennsylvania (2.0), Rhode Island (1.9), California (1.8), Alaska (1.6), Massachusetts (1.6), Illinois (1.5), and the Virgin Islands (1.5).
The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending July 27 were in Illinois (+2,369), Iowa (+545), Maine (+72), Vermont (+27), and New Hampshire (+17), while the largest decreases were in Michigan (-4,429), Kentucky (-3,346), Georgia (-1,832), Pennsylvania (-1,347), and California (-903).
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
