I learned about this new economic neologism elsewhere on Lemmy.
“vibecession,” a term that refers to a disconnect between economic data and how consumers feel.
My curiosity was piqued because I heard that Chrystia Freeland used it a month ago, before she was in the spotlight. Apparently the Liberals’ 2-month tax holiday and $250 cheques were in part to target this “vibecession.” Let’s listen.
“One of the positive impacts of this measure is to help Canadians get past that vibecession. Because how Canadians feel really does have a real economic impact,” Freeland said at a news conference on Nov. 25.
This term has perhaps been co-opted in the 2 or 3 years since economist Kyla Scanlon coined it. It sounds like she used it to mean purely a mismatch between popular economic indicators (e.g., national GDP, consumer spending, interest rates) and everyday people’s sense of their finances and the economy.
However Freeland and other politicians seem to be using it to mean that perceived issues with the economy are all in voters’ heads.
For me, I think the evidence is mounting that Freeland is not better than Trudeau.
But I think there’s more to unpack from the idea of a “vibecession.” I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that both things can be true: the popular economic indicators can be looking good and everyday people can be experiencing greater levels of financial hardship than they or their parents have ever known.
Any progressive who wants to represent workers needs to push those gross economic indicators to the side and look at the financial prosperity indicators that capture everyday people’s struggles and matter to them - at least when talking to voters. Because I think that’s what they’ll pay attention to.
And when people don’t do this - don’t look at meaningful and relevant metrics, like age of first home ownership, cost of a food basket or rent against a median income (something like that), how many are living paycheck to paycheck - that’s when people will flock even more to the fictitious BS that Trump or PP hock. Because if someone can never afford to own a home, for example, and we don’t see politicians meaningfully tackling housing or affordability, and they’re telling as about how great the economy is doing per GDP - they aren’t listening to talking to us.
Both quotes from https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/vibecession-creator-freeland-1.7397093
Like you say: a big part of the problem is that economic indicators don’t typically include what people have to spend or their ability to obtain assets they need/expect.
The Hatchet has an excellent episode about the problem. It also talks about political vision. Basically: parties don’t express a vision, they just look for individual policies to pander to different constituencies.
Thanks for the rec!
Basically: parties don’t express a vision, they just look for individual policies to pander to different constituencies.
Totally. And irrespective of what I think of this (not much-- politics is devolving into pure marketing), right-wing parties seem overwhelmingly more successful at it in the current era, which concerns me
it seems to me that both things can be true: the popular economic indicators can be looking good and everyday people can be experiencing greater levels of financial hardship than they or their parents have ever known.
Absolutely - data-based decision making is good, but the data has to be robust enough to fully capture the reality.
Regularly including cost of living measures alongside GDP would be a good start.
Mhm. I would think that indicators of the national economy (e.g., GDP) and livability for an average person are “apples and oranges” (ie, quite different things) and only modestly statistically correlated, if that
The problem with GDP, specifically, is that it’s an absolutely terrible measure of the economy.
For example a substantial portion of Canada’s GDP is propped up by our grotesquely inflated housing market. To any sane observer, that should be ringing alarm bells. There is nothing healthy about an economy where so much of the money in it goes into a basic necessity like shelter… And that’s before you even get to the fact that so much of housing is owned by a small number of wealthy investors.
A realistic view of an economy starts with looking at how much money the average person is making, and what things like groceries, housing, healthcare (dental, drugs, etc) and education cost in relation to that income. Can people actually afford to not just live, but prosper in your country? If not, you’ve got a problem.
That’s not “bad vibes” or whatever the fuck Freeland is calling it. It’s people accurately assessing that they’re poorer now than they used to be.
That’s not “bad vibes” or whatever the fuck Freeland is calling it. It’s people accurately assessing that they’re poorer now than they used to be.
Love that 👏👏👏
