Skip to main content

Why Is Trust and Confidence the Hidden Engine of Economic Growth?

Trust and confidence are the psychological foundations of all economic activity. When consumers and businesses believe the future will be prosperous and stable, they spend, invest, and hire. When they lose confidence, they retrench and hoard cash, even if nothing has changed fundamentally in the real economy. Trust is what makes credit possible—a lender must have confidence that the borrower will repay. Trust is what makes currency valuable—people accept pieces of paper (or digital entries) as payment only if they believe others will accept them. Trust is what makes markets function—buyers and sellers must have confidence that they are not being defrauded. Confidence can be rational (based on economic fundamentals) or irrational (based on animal spirits and herd behavior). Understanding confidence explains why economies can collapse even when production capacity is intact, why recessions are often self-fulfilling prophecies, and why restoring confidence after a crisis is as important as fiscal stimulus.

Trust and confidence are not tangible economic resources, but they are the intangible glue that holds the economy together—their loss is as damaging as any physical collapse of capacity.

Key Takeaways​

  • Confidence drives spending and investment decisions: Consumers spend more when optimistic; less when pessimistic—independent of actual income changes
  • Confidence is self-reinforcing: Optimism → more spending → more production → more jobs → validated optimism; pessimism creates the opposite spiral
  • Confidence can be irrational: "Animal spirits" (herd behavior, euphoria, panic) can drive economies to booms and busts disconnected from fundamentals
  • Credit depends entirely on confidence: Lenders extend credit based on confidence in repayment; loss of confidence freezes credit even for solvent borrowers
  • Currency depends on trust: Money has value only because people trust it will maintain that value and be accepted by others
  • Confidence surveys predict economic activity: Consumer and business confidence indices often lead turning points in the economy
  • Restoring confidence after a crisis is slow: Even after objective conditions improve, confidence can remain low for years (Japan's lost decade)

The Confidence-Driven Spending Decision​

Imagine two identical households with identical current incomes and asset holdings. Household A believes the economy will grow, jobs are secure, and stock prices will rise. Household B believes a recession is coming, layoffs are likely, and stock prices will fall. How will they behave differently?

Household A will spend freely, buy a house, invest in stocks, and feel comfortable taking on debt for a car purchase. They save a smaller portion of income because they are confident they can earn more in the future.

Household B will cut spending, avoid new purchases, reduce debt, and stockpile cash. Even though their current income is unchanged, they are saving a larger portion because they are pessimistic about the future.

Neither household has made a mistake—they are both rationally responding to their beliefs about the future. The problem is that if many households behave like Household B simultaneously (a loss of confidence), aggregate spending falls. Retailers sell less, lay off workers, and reduce orders from suppliers. Suppliers lay off workers. Job losses increase, validating the pessimism. The pessimistic expectation becomes self-fulfilling.

This is the confidence multiplier: a shift in beliefs about the future causes behavior changes that cause the future to unfold as people expected. Optimism causes spending that validates optimism. Pessimism causes spending cuts that validate pessimism.

Confidence and the consumption function: In macroeconomic theory, the consumption function describes how consumption spending depends on income. The standard formula is that consumption is some percentage of disposable income (say, 90%)—save the rest. But this ignores confidence.

A more realistic consumption function includes an "animal spirits" or confidence term. When confidence is high, consumers spend more than the baseline percentage—say, 92% of income. When confidence is low, they spend less—say, 88%. This 4 percentage-point swing in consumption as a share of income can cause a large change in aggregate spending because consumption is 70% of GDP. A 4% reduction in consumption spending reduces aggregate demand by roughly 2.8% of GDP—a significant recession.

How Confidence Creates the Boom-Bust Cycle​

Confidence drives the amplitude of the business cycle. A modest improvement in economic conditions can trigger optimism, which causes spending to accelerate beyond what the fundamentals justify, creating a boom. As the boom continues, excesses build: excess debt, overvalued assets, misallocated resources. Eventually, something triggers a loss of confidence (a recession becomes visible, a key business fails, a bubble bursts). Spending collapses, validating the loss of confidence. A bust follows.

The housing bubble of the 2000s illustrates how confidence can drive a boom disconnected from fundamentals. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, confidence in the housing market became extremely high. People believed housing prices would keep rising, jobs were secure, and anyone could afford a house through creative financing. This confidence was partly justified (economic growth was strong, housing supply was limited in desirable areas) and partly irrational (prices could not keep rising forever relative to incomes).

The high confidence drove demand. Investors bought multiple properties, believing they could flip them for profit. Homeowners used home equity lines of credit to finance consumption. Lenders competed to originate mortgages, loosening standards. As demand soared, prices soared. Higher prices validated the optimism—"I told you prices would go up!"—which drew even more buyers. The boom became self-reinforcing.

By 2006, housing prices were far above their historical relationship to incomes. Rental prices suggested that owning a home with a $400,000 mortgage made sense only if house prices would keep appreciating. Fundamentally, prices were not justified. But confidence remained high because prices were rising.

In 2007, confidence began to crack as lending standards and loan performance started deteriorating. In 2008, the cracks became a collapse. Confidence evaporated. People who believed prices would rise forever realized they would fall. Demand collapsed. Supply (newly built homes) remained high temporarily. Prices fell 30%+. The boom that confidence created became a bust.

The actual change in housing demand and supply alone would have caused a correction, but the collapse of confidence amplified it. Prices fell faster than fundamentals alone would justify because people fled the market, expecting further declines. The boom and bust were both driven by confidence shifts.

Confidence and Credit​

Credit is the bridge between present and future. A lender extends credit based on confidence that the borrower will repay in the future. The lender has no direct control over the future; they can only assess the probability of repayment and price the loan accordingly.

During booms, confidence in future incomes and asset prices becomes extremely high. Lenders, swept up in optimism, extend credit freely and on easy terms. The 2000s housing boom saw lenders confident that housing prices would keep rising, that borrowers' incomes would grow, and that defaults were unlikely. They extended credit to subprime borrowers (those with poor credit histories) at favorable rates, assuming rising house prices would provide a cushion.

This confidence was misplaced. When house prices stopped rising, borrowers had no cushion. Defaults spiked. Lenders suffered massive losses. Confidence in the financial system collapsed.

Loss of confidence in credit can freeze the system even for solvent borrowers. In September 2008, after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, confidence in bank solvency disappeared. Banks did not know which counterparties were solvent; they stopped lending to each other. The interbank lending market froze. Banks that needed to roll over short-term loans (a routine operation) could not access funds. Even banks with adequate capital could not operate because confidence was gone.

The Federal Reserve had to provide emergency lending to prevent bank failures. The government had to guarantee bank deposits and take equity stakes in banks. Only after these confidence-restoring measures did lending resume. The problem was not that banks suddenly became insolvent; the problem was loss of confidence.

Confidence in currency operates similarly. Currency has value because people trust that others will accept it and that it will maintain purchasing power. During hyperinflations, this confidence evaporates. Zimbabwe's currency became worthless not because the nation lacked productive capacity but because confidence in the currency's value disappeared. People rushed to exchange currency for goods or foreign currency. The currency ceased to function.

The Measurement of Confidence: Surveys and Indices​

Confidence is intangible but measurable through surveys. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) surveys consumers monthly about their economic expectations and willingness to spend. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index is similar. Business confidence is measured by indices like the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Optimism Index.

These surveys have proven predictive power. Changes in consumer confidence often lead turning points in spending and employment. When confidence falls sharply (say, dropping from 100 to 90 in a month), economists expect consumption to weaken in the following months. When confidence rises, economists expect spending to accelerate.

For example, in March 2020, when COVID-19 lockdowns began in the U.S., the Consumer Confidence Index fell from 130 to 113—a sharp but not unprecedented drop. However, government stimulus checks were announced and the stock market rallied sharply after initial losses. Consumer confidence recovered faster than in typical recessions. By September 2020, the index was back above 100. Correspondingly, consumption spending recovered faster than expected.

Japan's experience provides a contrasting example. After the asset bubble burst in 1990, consumer confidence remained depressed for years. The Conference Board's Japan Confidence Index fell from 50 in 1989 to 20 by 1993 and remained below 50 throughout the 1990s and much of the 2000s. Consumers and businesses saw stock prices and real estate values collapsing, banks failing, and growth stalling. Confidence did not recover until the 2010s when inflation began rising and the yen weakened, reviving export demand and asset prices.

The point is that confidence surveys are not just capturing sentiments—they are measuring the psychological state that drives behavior. When confidence falls sharply, people reduce spending independent of income changes, which is real and measurable.

Why Restoring Confidence Is Difficult​

Once confidence is lost, restoring it is exceptionally difficult. This is because confidence requires belief in a better future, and people form beliefs partly from recent history. If the recent past was a crash and recession, confidence remains low even after objective conditions improve.

Japan is the canonical example. The asset bubble burst in 1990, and real GDP growth fell to 1–2% for the entire 1990s (the "Lost Decade"). By the late 1990s, objective conditions had stabilized—the depression was not worsening—but confidence remained depressed. Unemployment was still high. Stock prices were still far below 1989 peaks. Consumer and business confidence remained low, driving continued low spending and investment.

The government tried fiscal stimulus (building highways, schools) to revive demand, but the stimulus did not work as expected because confidence was so low that businesses did not increase investment in response to higher government spending. Keynes called this the "liquidity trap"—consumers and businesses hoard cash regardless of stimulus because they do not trust the future. Confidence remained depressed until the 2010s, 20+ years later, when inflation rose and asset prices recovered.

Why is confidence so hard to restore? Because confidence is self-reinforcing but also self-perpetuating in the downward direction. Once people believe the future is bleak, they act in ways that make it bleak. Low spending leads to low production and high unemployment, confirming the bleakness. This cycle can persist even after the initial cause of the loss of confidence is gone.

Restoring confidence requires either: (1) sufficient time for people to update their beliefs based on a long period of improvement (very slow); (2) a major positive shock that breaks the pessimistic expectations (rare and hard to engineer); or (3) a policy that directly targets confidence restoration by committing to future prosperity (what forward guidance and quantitative easing aim to do, with mixed results).

The Rationality Question: When Is Confidence Justified?​

A critical question is whether confidence is rational or irrational. Are people in the 2000s housing boom justified in believing prices will keep rising? Are Japanese consumers in the 1990s justified in pessimism?

Keynes introduced the concept of "animal spirits" to describe the non-rational component of confidence—the tendency of market participants to be euphoric or panicked beyond what fundamentals justify. Behavioral economists have built on this, showing that people are subject to herd behavior, overconfidence bias, and other psychological quirks.

However, the distinction between rational and irrational confidence is not always clear. Rational confidence is based on actual economic fundamentals: productivity growth, labor force growth, capital formation, and technological innovation. Irrational confidence is based on beliefs untethered to fundamentals. But these can be hard to distinguish in real time.

In the 2000s housing boom, confidence that housing prices would keep rising was likely irrational because prices had deviated far from historical relationships to incomes and rents. However, some confidence was justified because population growth and housing supply constraints meant housing was genuinely in limited supply. The problem was that confidence went beyond justification and became herd behavior.

In Japan, confidence that the future would be bleak (after 1990) was perhaps justified initially because the asset bubble represented an obvious overvaluation, and when it burst, losses were real. However, by the mid-1990s, when conditions had stabilized, continued pessimism was arguably irrational because fundamentals were improving. The pessimism became self-perpetuating.

The practical point is that confidence is not purely rational, but it is also not purely random. It tends to extrapolate recent trends, lag behind changes in fundamentals, and feed on itself. Understanding this helps explain why economies experience cycles and why policy must sometimes act to restore confidence rather than just wait for fundamentals to improve.

Policy and Confidence​

Central banks and governments have learned that restoring confidence is as important as traditional stimulus. This is why, during the 2008 crisis and the 2020 COVID shock, central banks acted immediately to reassure markets. The Fed reduced rates to zero, provided liquidity, and engaged in quantitative easing—not just because these actions had mechanical effects on money supply and credit, but because they signaled confidence and commitment.

Forward guidance—the central bank's commitment to maintain low rates and support the economy for an extended period—is partly about mechanics (keeping long-term rates low) and partly about psychology (signaling confidence that the economy will recover).

Fiscal stimulus is similar: it has direct effects (government spending increases demand) and confidence effects (showing that the government is committed to recovery, which affects private spending).

The most confidence-destroying policy is ambiguity or inconsistency. If the government or central bank is uncertain about what to do, confidence evaporates. This was part of the problem in the 1930s—the Federal Reserve did not act decisively early on; the government did not commit to recovery spending. Confidence remained low, and the Great Depression persisted.

In contrast, the 2008 crisis, while severe, recovered faster partly because the Federal Reserve and government committed decisive action. Within a few weeks, not months, extraordinary measures were announced. This did not prevent the crash or immediately restore confidence, but it shortened the period of extreme loss of confidence.

Common Mistakes in Understanding Confidence and the Economy​

Mistake 1: Dismissing confidence as irrational or psychological. Confidence is partly psychological, but it has real economic effects. A loss of confidence that causes spending to fall is not "just sentiment"—it is a real change in behavior with real output and employment consequences. Understanding confidence is essential to understanding the economy.

Mistake 2: Assuming confidence always reflects fundamentals. Confidence can lag fundamentals significantly. It can be irrational (divorced from fundamentals). However, confidence does eventually anchor to fundamentals if reality persists long enough.

Mistake 3: Treating confidence as exogenous (outside the economy). Confidence is partly endogenous—driven by economic outcomes. A boom builds confidence, which drives more spending, which validates the boom. The economy and confidence are intertwined.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the distribution of confidence. Confidence is not evenly distributed. Rich people who own stocks may feel very confident when stock prices are rising, while poor people without asset holdings may feel pessimistic. This distributional aspect of confidence can fuel inequality and political division during booms and busts.

Mistake 5: Assuming stimulus always works regardless of confidence. If confidence is sufficiently low (a liquidity trap), stimulus spending may not translate into private spending. Government spending of $100 billion, if it fully crowds out private spending (because people are hoarding money), does not increase aggregate demand. Restoring confidence must accompany stimulus.

Frequently Asked Questions​

Can confidence be measured accurately?​

Confidence surveys (Consumer Confidence Index, business confidence indices) are reliable measures of sentiment and predict spending behavior well. However, they are backward-looking (people report recent sentiment) and subject to sampling error. The surveys capture average confidence but miss outliers and distribution changes. They are useful but not perfect predictors.

Does confidence affect different income groups equally?​

No. Wealthy households whose wealth is primarily in stocks are more sensitive to stock price changes in confidence. Poor households without financial assets are less affected by stock prices but more affected by job market confidence. During the 2008 crisis, wealthy households saw confidence collapse due to asset losses; poor households were affected more by job losses. The distribution of confidence effects is unequal.

Can policymakers manufacture confidence?​

Partly. Credible policy commitments can restore confidence. However, if fundamentals are weak, manufactured confidence can collapse suddenly if reality contradicts it. The best approach is combining credible policy (signaling confidence) with fundamental improvements (investing in productivity, fixing financial system).

Why is Japanese confidence so persistently low?​

Japan's 1990 asset bust was traumatic—stock and real estate prices fell 70%+. Households lost enormous wealth. Banks failed. The government's fiscal stimulus did not generate the expected recovery, further damaging confidence in policymakers. Multiple decades of low growth confirmed pessimism. Even though fundamentals improved in the 2010s (inflation rose, the yen weakened, exports improved), the psychological trauma of the lost decades persisted for some cohorts.

Is the U.S. economy dependent on consumer confidence, or can it grow on fundamentals alone?​

Both matter. Productivity growth, demographic expansion, and capital formation are the long-term fundamentals. Confidence affects the amplitude and timing of cycles around the fundamental trend. An economy with poor fundamentals but high confidence will eventually crash when reality becomes undeniable. An economy with good fundamentals but low confidence will grow slower than potential. Ideally, both are strong.

How do you distinguish between rational and irrational confidence?​

Rationally, confidence should reflect the present value of expected future profits, growth, and stability. If asset prices or spending reflect expectations far above this present value, confidence is likely excessive and irrational. However, this is difficult to measure in real time. Economists use tools like price-to-earnings ratios and price-to-rent ratios to assess whether confidence seems excessive, but these are imperfect guides.

Explore these interconnected topics to deepen your understanding:

Summary​

Trust and confidence are the intangible engines driving economic activity. Confidence determines how much consumers and businesses spend and invest independent of their current incomes—when optimistic, they spend generously; when pessimistic, they retrench. Confidence is self-reinforcing: optimism drives spending, which validates optimism; pessimism drives spending cuts, which validates pessimism. This confidence multiplier amplifies the business cycle beyond what production and income alone would predict. Credit depends entirely on confidence—lenders extend credit based on confidence in repayment; loss of confidence freezes credit even for solvent borrowers. Currencies depend on trust that they will maintain value and be accepted. Confidence surveys predict spending and employment accurately. However, once confidence is lost, restoring it is extremely slow—it requires either long periods of improving conditions, major positive shocks, or credible policy commitments. Japan's lost decade showed how persistent pessimism can last decades despite improving fundamentals. Understanding confidence explains why stimulus must target both mechanical effects (increased government spending) and psychological effects (restoring belief in future prosperity) to be truly effective.

Next​

→ A simple template for understanding any economy