Stop the count...again

Why we may not be able to depend on economic data going forward.

Data: it’s supposed to be objective. Black and white. The truth, unblemished by opinion, politicization, or emotion. But some changes at the top are making the data we gather suspect, untrustworthy, or at least, a tad suspicious.

This happened during the pandemic. Remember “if we stop testing, right now, we’d have very few cases, if any?” The whole idea around that was to artificially deflate the number of positive COVID cases. If you don’t test, there are no postive cases, right? Genius.

Now, the same sort of politicization is occuring to our economic data. And, as much as it pains me to say it, that data may be suspect going forward. 

The crux of the issue is the administration’s firing of two expert panels and committees that work with the federal government to verify the quality of economic data, such as GDP and inflation numbers. Specifically, the Trump administration terminated the the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee.

Why?

According to a message sent by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to those on the committee, the reasoning was that “the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the purposes for which FESAC was established has been fulfilled and the committee has been terminated, effective February 28 2025." 

Lutnick, it’s important to note, has recently said that he wants to change how some of the data, such as GDP, is calculated. Specifically, he wants to exclude government spending when measuring the growth or contraction of the economy. That’s also an idea that’s been pushed by Elon Musk, who, you know, is…hanging around.

There may be arguments for or against excluding government data. But it’s important to know that government spending is included in the GDP calculation because there are numerous governmental changes that can shape the economy, such as taxation, spending, regulations, and more — all of it can shape the economy’s trajectory.

Accordingly, that adds a dimension to the calculation that makes the data a bit more transparent and easier to sift through. So, why change it? Well, a simple answer could be that there have been some big changes at the federal level over the past couple of months, with widespread layoffs and mothballed or gutted federal agencies or programs. That, in turn, is likely to effect the wider economy, and result in some fairly ugly numbers when they’re ultimately calculated. The tens of thousands of laid off workers, for example, could increase the unemployment rate, put more strain on safety net programs, and have downstream effects—federal spending does trickle down to the private sector (somebody has to build tanks!), and that could have an exponential effect on employment. We’re not sure how it could all shake out yet.
But changing the way it’s calculated could obscure the damage to a degree.
At least, that’s where my cynical brain veers.

Now, it’s important to note that the the groups disbanded by the administration, like the FESAC, do not provide or produce the actual statistics. The FESAC is merely an advisory comittee. But the question is this: Why disband these committees if their absence will inevitably result in lesser quality data, or even bad data?

The cynic (again, me) might suspect some good, old fashioned corruption. And frankly, it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion at this point. They—the administration and DOGE, mostly—know they’re causing some real damage to the economy, and want to mess with the numbers to make it appear that the damage is not nearly as bad as it may seem. I don’t know if that’s true. Nobody does. However, if you were to manipulate the GDP data, it may help make charts like the one below look a little better.

But more broadly, messing with the economic data models absolutely invites conspiratorial thinking. You’re seeing some of it blossom, as you read this, in my mind. I do need to wonder whether I’m being unfair. Unfortunately, given the people and personalities that are floating the changes, I don’t think I am. I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Again, we saw this during the pandemic. We also saw them float conspiracies about how the government was changing data or definitions during the previous administration — you might remember when the Biden administration “changed” the definition of a recession? What happened was that there were two straight quarters of negative GDP growth, which is, in layman’s terms, the definition of a recession. But it’s not the ACTUAL definition, and while Biden’s people tried to dance around it, they didn’t change anything. And, in subsequent months, the GDP numbers were revised (as they always are), so there was only one quarter of economic contraction during Biden’s tenure.

Again, though, you can see where this type of thinking leads. You start messing with numbers and definitions and calculations, and it makes us all a bit less trusting. You also can’t really make an apples-to-apples comparison after changes are made, making it all the more difficult to gauge change, negative or positive, over time periods.

Accordingly, there doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for making the proposed calculation changes. Or for disbanding the committees. Those would be, or are, mistakes—in my opinion.

But It’s the kneecapping of public trust, though, that’s the largest casualty. Perhaps it’s even the point? Trump’s people do like to muddy the waters, making it seem that everyone is corrupt and untrustworthy, so their own corruption and dishonor isn’t so bad. I do believe that’s a primary tenent of their strategy, insomuch as there is one. 
You do need to wonder, too, if the administration would be disbanding these committees and floating changes to the numbers if the numbers were, well, looking a bit better? You may remember that during Trump’s first go-around that, as if magic, jobs reports were no longer “fake” or exagerrated, as they were under Obama.

Here’s the actual exchange between a reporter and then-Press Secretary Sean Spicer, when asked about that, per a 2017 report from Politico:

“In the past, the president has referred to particular job reports as phony or totally fiction,” a reporter asked. “Does the president believe that this jobs report was accurate and a fair way to measure the economy?”

“I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly,” Spicer said. “They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”

How long before that same line is trotted out to defend the manipulation of CPI or GDP data? Or should I just take my tin foil hat off and have a Diet Coke?

As always, I’m open to your thoughts: sammbecker@gmail.com

Stay vigilant!

Forget AI: This is the new, new thing

A primer on quantum computing, because you’re about to hear a lot about it.

Superposition in action

It’s not fun to feel like the dumbest person in the room, but sometimes, it pays off. That’s because you’re likely learning something new, and hanging out with people that are operating on another level than you are, at least in some ways.

That was my experience this past week, as I was working on a story about quantum computing. I’ve written and read a bit about quantum computing before, and frankly, it’s above my head. Way above. I don’t understand it.

But if I were to lay my chips on the roulette table, I’d say it’s the next big thing. The new, new thing. It could change everything — even more so than artificial intelligence throwing the world into a tailspin.

Given how important I think the topic is, and will be in the coming years, I wanted to put together a sort of primer, which can hopefully help establish at least a baseline understanding of what quantum computing is, how it works, and why it’s important.

To set the stage, most of what I know about the topic derives from conversations I’ve had with the team at a company called D-Wave. Their team has been extremely helpful in dumbing things down for me, and as a result, I was able to cover the news that the company has effectively “achieved quantum supremacy.” That means that it used a quantum computer to do something that would otherwise be impossible to do with normal, or “classical” computers. Their team was able to simulate the properties of a hypothetical magnetic material without actually creating the material. That would’ve taken a million years to do with a normal computer.

Imagine what else we could do with that technology!

What is quantum computing?

I’ll start with the most basic question: What is quantum computing? If you Google that question, the answer you’ll get will describe computing performed using the principles of quantum mechanics, or something along those lines. It’s confusing, abstract, and difficult to conceptualize. 

In effect, quantum computers use wild concepts like “superposition” and “entanglement” to work things out. You may know that a classical computer, at its core, uses binary language, 0 and 1, to compute. Quantum computers use “quantum bits,” also called “Qubits,” which are actually 0s and 1s at the SAME TIME. That’s what “superposition” refers to: Being in two places, or two things, simultaneously.

Have a headache yet? Me too.

But you can think of it this way: If these computers can simultaneously look at or analyze the same thing in two different ways simultaneously, it can reduce the time and energy required to work out computations. That’s how it ultimately made the most sense to me.

On top of that, classical computers compute in a linear fashion. So, they read computer code and follow the instructions accordingly. Quantum computers, on the other hand, don’t need to work in a specific order, or operate one step at a time. They can do it all, all at once. It’s like that movie, Everything, Everywhere, All At Once, which itself is a reference to the quantum realm.

So, if you want to boil it down? Quantum computers can, basically, do a bunch of things all at once, which means that they can do a lot more, a lot faster, and with fewer resources.

Is this stuff even real?

If you start reading about quantum computing, you’ll learn that a lot of this stuff is hypothetical. Theoretical. It’s pie-in-the-sky.

Notably, the CEO of Nvidia, Jensen Huang (an Oregon State grad! Who knew?), recently ruffled feathers when he said that quantum computers were decades away. That, evidently, is not true. D-Wave has quantum computers, and has clients that are already using them. Other quantum computing companies likely do, too — a list that includes Rigetti Computing, IonQ, and others. Big companies are also in the mix, like IBM, Google, and Microsoft.

In fact, Microsoft recently made a quantum announcement of its own. The company unveiled a new quantum computing chip in February, and that was a couple of months after Google announced one of its own. Not to be outdone, Amazon also announced a quantum chip a couple of weeks ago.

So, yeah, there’s momentum in the quantum space. There’s money flowing to it, and people are working hard to make this all a reality. Or, more of a reality.

What’s next?

The big question for quantum computing, really the only question of any substance, is this: What does this all mean and how will it materialize in everyday life? Well, as noted, quantum computers are already in use. They’re being used in laboratories, and I was even told that some telecom companies are using them in various ways to help improve their networks.

But it’s the potential here that is particularly striking. Since quantum computers can do so many things, all at once, cutting down calculation time, there is immense potential. For instance, they could be used to try and find new drugs or cures for diseases — instead of having scientists and researchers physically create new drugs in a lab and test them out, it may be possible to use quantum computing to simulate their creation and then virtually test their effects. That could shave years off of development times.

They could be used to create unbreakable codes, helping the cybersecurity field. They could, as D-Wave demonstrated, help materials researchers develop new materials that power new and improved technology. And then think about how it may help with modeling in fields like finance or even meteorology.

Quantum computers could change everything. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it. It’s not often that I learn something completely new that really blows my mind, but this is a topic that did.

Even if it did put me on my heels and take me out of my comfort zone, that’s what it’s all about, right? Imagine trying to teach your great-grandparents about ChatGPT? Or showing a medieval peasant an iPhone? In some ways, that’s how I feel—out of my depth.

But it’s cool, and probably best that we start learning about these technologies now, before they’re implemented into everything and anything around us, like AI.

Questions? Thoughts? Tell me: sammbecker@gmail.com

I feel profoundly disrespected.

And you should too.

Friends,

A reminder that NPNR will start publishing more often this month, and at the end of the month, will go premium. That is, you can choose to pay for more content, or continue with the current format. Either way is fine with me, and I appreciate you all no matter what.

That said, aside from the usual screed, a friend wrote something that is included in today’s edition about what’s happening in Texas. Whitney Riek lives in West Texas, and is a mom—so, she has some thoughts on the measles outbreak going on down there, and who better to weigh in, really? I’ve known her for more than 20 years, and appreciate her thoughts. Hopefully, she’ll continue to contribute.

But first, who else feels…disrespected by what’s going on?

---

I feel profoundly disrespected

Like many of you, I’ve been trying to grapple with what’s going on. Frankly, there’s too much to comprehend—that’s partially by design. But more so, as I’ve written to you all before, I’m just trying to get an idea of how I actually feel about it. 

Mad? Sure, but not really. But in another sense, really.

Sad? Yeah. Maybe “disappointed” is a better word, but that’s in the mix.
Discouraged? You bet. 

But I think that if I were going to sum it all up, I’d say that more than anything, I feel absolutely and completely disrespected. I think you should, too. It’s been pretty clear that the people in charge don’t have much of an idea about what they’re doing, but when asked for solutions or even ideas to remedy serious problems, we’re getting absolute nonsense in return. 

Here are some of the ones that have particularly irked me:

Brooke Rollins, the Secretary of Agriculture, on grocery prices: For some reason, egg prices are a big deal to a lot of people. And while reducing egg prices was one of the administration’s big promises during the past election, we’re apparently on our own. Rollins’ advice to the American public on how to handle egg prices? Get some chickens.

Great. Thanks. Of course, the whole issue with egg prices is that avian flu is killing all the damn chickens, and we all know how well these people handle pandemics.

Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense: It feels like we’re inching closer to World War III, but the Secretary of Defense has bigger things on his mind. Namely, getting rid of “woke” stuff—whatever that means. In an effort to purge the Department of Defense of anything that may promote inclusion or diversity, Hegseth’s minions are removing content from social media profiles and more that may make some people a tad uncomfortable.

That includes removing images of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. Because, you know, it has the word “gay” in it. These are serious people, folks.

J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States: One thing I’ll never forget is the non-answer that J.D. Vance offered up when asked how the administration might help with child care costs. For reference, my household pays thousands of dollars per month for child care. It’s a mess. So, I was interested. Vance’s suggestion? Get grandma and grandpa to work for free, assuming they’re available, or just get rid of standards for daycares. See his answer for yourself.

“I think one of the things that we can do is make it easier for families to choose whatever model they want, right? So one of the ways that you might be able to relieve a little bit of pressure on people who are paying so much for daycare is…maybe grandma and grandpa [want] to help out a little bit more, or maybe there’s an aunt or uncle that wants to help out a little bit more. If that happens, you relieve some of the pressure on all the resources that we’re spending on daycare.”

I would expect at least a half-ass answer out of him, but I guess that expectation was a bit too lofty.

United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: There’s a measles outbreak in Texas—read below for more—and RFK Jr., worm-eaten brain and all, says we should eat more carrots. Seriously, though, read below!

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: Most recently, when asked why the stock market is falling and the economic data hasn’t been rosy in recent weeks, Lutnick said that Biden “left [Trump] a pile of poop.” And that all the bad data is “Biden data.” What we’re seeing, of course, is a reaction to a new trade war that we’ve waged for some reason, and frankly, the data isn’t even that bad. Not yet. Give it a few months. Either way, we’re already well into the blame everything on Biden campaign, so that’s neat.

I also appreciate when adults use phrases like “pile of poop,” it really garners a sense of maturity.

These aren’t answers. People have real concerns. Real problems. And this is what we’re getting from the people in charge? Say what you will about the current administration’s opponents, but at least they pretend to have some actual answers or solutions, even if they’re not necessarily what you want to hear (like, everybody needs to pay more taxes to implement a national child care system, or something like that).

Hopefully, these people get a bit better at what they’re doing, or explaining their rationale, or telling Americans what to do or expect. I suspect they won’t, as they’re not serious people. And I don’t like the fact that I don’t respect them, or think that they’re serious people. I wish they were. But they’re talking to me like I’m a gosh-darned idiot. A pile of poop.

As a result, I feel disrespected.

---

Dangerous and divisive advice, from the top-down

By Whitney Riek

Measles is surging in West Texas. Proliferating anti-vax misinformation, spread by U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK Jr.), is to blame for declining vaccination rates, and thus, the current outbreak.

While this current outbreak should serve to prove the efficacy of vaccines, RFK Jr. provides a weak recommendation that focuses more on vitamins and lifestyle than the life-saving vaccine that once eradicated the very disease threatening to plague us again today.

During the recent measles outbreak, RFK Jr. wrote this in a recent opinion piece for Fox News:

“As healthcare providers, community leaders, and policymakers, we have a shared responsibility to protect public health. This includes ensuring that accurate information about vaccine safety and efficacy is disseminated. We must engage with communities to understand their concerns, provide culturally competent education, and make vaccines readily accessible for all those who want them.

It is also our responsibility to provide up-to-date guidance on available therapeutic medications. While there is no approved antiviral for those who may be infected, CDC has recently updated their recommendation supporting administration of vitamin A under the supervision of a physician for those with mild, moderate, and severe infection. Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.

Tens of thousands died with, or of, measles annually in 19th Century America. By 1960 -- before the vaccine’s introduction -- improvements in sanitation and nutrition had eliminated 98% of measles deaths. Good nutrition remains a best defense against most chronic and infectious illnesses. Vitamins A, C, and D, and foods rich in vitamins B12, C, and E should be part of a balanced diet.”

Rather than recommend vaccination against measles by way of the MMR vaccine, he urges parents to merely talk with their doctors and consider it, since the “decision to vaccinate is a personal one.” An avid anti-vaxxer and historical spreader of misinformation, RFK fails to acknowledge the proven efficacy of the MMR vaccine. 
While RFK's recent "call to action" in the wake of the measles outbreak in West Texas should have been a recommendation to vaccinate, it was not, and instead, was a weak suggestion to consider vaccinating, riddled with misinformation and subtle notes of karma. He seems to say that if we had all been eating healthy to begin with, this never would have happened in the first place. 

As a parent of young children living in Texas, I find this absolutely infuriating. 
Not only does his response fail to address the measles problem, but this narrative also perpetuates a dangerous dichotomy between nutrition and medicine. While not surprising to most, RFK continues to prove himself unqualified at best and a threat to public health at worst.

Measles is a highly contagious respiratory illness. Symptoms include fever, cough, congestion, and eye irritation, followed by a rash. While most cases are mild, severe symptoms include pneumonia, blindness, and encephalitis. Infections can also lead to lifelong health consequences. Measles was declared eliminated in 2000 but has recently reemerged in a Mennonite community in West Texas. 

According to the CDC, 164 total cases of measles have been reported so far this year. Of those, 95% are unvaccinated (or have an unknown vaccination status). Of the total cases, 20% have resulted in hospitalization and one death has been confirmed. The current outbreak has predominantly affected children.

Kennedy almost gets it right, as he acknowledges that "vaccines not only protect individual children from measles but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons." 

He also acknowledges the decline in measles cases immediately following the vaccine, yet he attributes the elimination of 98% of measles deaths to "improvements in sanitation and nutrition". Moreover, he claims that "good nutrition remains the best defense against most chronic and infectious illness". 

Vitamin-rich foods should certainly be part of a balanced diet. Since measles does not have a specific anti-viral treatment, vitamin A may be appropriate when administered by a physician as supportive care. While it is true that sanitation and nutrition are critical for overall health, it is not a replacement for vaccines. Both are true - overall health is important and vaccines reduce the risk for infectious diseases. 

The nutrition versus medicine dichotomy is not only false but dangerous and divisive. The resurgence of an eliminated illness is no doubt due to the declining vaccinations, thanks to the dangerous dissemination of misinformation. And what's happening in West Texas now is a prime example of the consequences. 

Our community should be doing everything we can to keep our families safe and healthy. The MMR vaccine reduces risk by 97% and has been proven effective for stopping transmission and reducing the risk of severe illness. RFK's call to action is not to vaccinate, but "for all of us to reaffirm our commitment to public health", whatever that means. 

The decision to vaccinate is not personal, it's communal. And our children's lives depend on it.

---

As always, remain vigilant. Reach me at sammbecker@gmail.com.

It's yours, you paid for it. They're breaking it.

What's happening to the CFPB should have you steaming.

I entered the working world in 2009. Though I had jobs stretching back years before, that spring, I graduated from college, and like many others around my age, was looking for a way to kickstart a career. I didn’t have much direction, but I wanted to do something. I was happy, at the time, to see where the currents took me.

But the universe had other plans. As many of you may recall, 2009 was not an ideal time to do…anything, really. Except buy stocks. The financial crisis had caused the Great Recession, and we were all doing our best to get by. The Obama administration had just come into office, and Democrats had big majorities in Congress. 

So, they passed a whole bunch of Wall Street reforms, including the Dodd-Frank legislation. Part of that was the creation of a new government agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB. It’s job? Exactly what it sounds like: Protect consumers from financial malpractice, scams, and the like.

Naturally, banks and other financial institutions weren’t and haven’t been big fans. The CFPB has done a lot of things that have worked to the benefit of ordinary people, too, such as capping certain types of fees that banks can charge, and more.

But the CFPB is one of many agencies and programs that is being targeted by the Trump administration. Interestingly, he more or less left it alone during his first go-around in office. This time, however, it’s being strangled, defanged, and left to wither. 

I wrote a story about it a couple of weeks ago, and have had the opportunity to speak with several experts about it. They’re…perplexed. The CFPB is a prime example of a government agency that works more or less how it should, and it brings in more money than it spends. Since it was created around 15 years ago, it’s clawed back $21 billion for consumers, and it costs less than $1 billion annually to administer.

Even so, Trump put a new guy in charge: Acting director Russell Vought, who is also serving as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought was confirmed to his role along a party-line vote, so he was far from a consensus candidate. He is, so far, delivering for Trump’s people: He’s fired or is in the process of firing pretty much everyone, is dropping ongoing lawsuits against companies for financial wrongdoing, and even closed the CFPB’s headquarters. 

One source told me that Trump—or, Trump’s people, because I really doubt Trump himself has any idea what the CFPB is or what it does—was persuaded to go after the CFPB early in his second term by some of his friends or “friends” in the financial industry. Under the Biden administration, the source says that the CFPB was fairly aggressive. And it was. Here are some examples: 

• Slash credit card late fees: A year ago, the CFPB announced a rule capping late fees on credit cards at $8 for some credit card companies, which was expected to save consumers more than $14 billion per year.

• Capped overdraft fees: The CFPB capped most bank overdraft fees at $5 in December 2024. This move aimed to save consumers around $5 billion annually (if it sticks).

• Removed medical debt from credit reports: The CFPB targeted old medical debt on credit reports, aiming to reduce the financial burden on consumers.

• Generally stuck it to the man: The CFPB pursued aggressive legal action against financial institutions accused of wrongdoing, including a lawsuit against Capital One for allegedly misleading customers about savings account opportunities.

These are just a few examples. There are many more. But overall, the consensus was that Biden’s CFPB overstepped. It took things a bit too far. And now, it needs to pay. So, Trump’s people are tearing it apart. 

Why does this chap my hide so much? Let’s be real: Pretty much everything that’s happened over the past six months has really chapped my hide, but this? I suppose it all stems from the fact that I know exactly when and why the CFPB was created, and have closely watched what it’s done over the past decade and a half. I know damn well that it’s made a difference, and that it’s a fairly good example of good governance—lord knows we’re short on those.

But here’s the other thing: By dismantling the CFPB, the Trump administration is actively stealing from the American people. It’s an agency that was created by Congress, and paid for by the taxpayers. So, we’ve all paid for it. It exists as a matter of legality. And they’re trying to take it away.

Again: It’s yours. You paid for it. You’re entitled to it, by law. And they’re taking a baseball bat to the entire thing, for no apparent gain. It actively hurts the American public, but they’re doing it anyway. There’s truly no excuse for it.

I know, I know. The same could be said about many other things that are going on right now. But as I said, this is one that strikes my tiny little heart particularly hard. 
With all of this in mind, it’s important to know that the CFPB, since it exists as a matter of legality, isn’t completely going away. At least not yet (they could try, I suppose). But what they’re doing instead is neutering it, and will likely allow it to continue to exist as a zombified entity. Like a shell company, in some ways. There is still a lot of CFPB legislation and proposals in the air. There are rules that it has put into place. Those aren’t necessarily going away immediately, either. We’ll need to wait and see what happens.

But I do want you all to think about what’s happening, whether it’s to the CFPB, or otherwise. I’ll say it again: You paid for it, and are entitled to the protections that agencies like the CFPB provide. You’re being deprived of those protections because of craven cronyists who aren’t even pretending to have your best interests in mind.

It really grinds my gears, let me tell ya.

Remember: You can reach me at sammbecker@gmail.com with your thoughts, insults, or anything else.

Stay vigilant, friends!

We were wrong about the economy. But also right?

Finally, a reasonable explanation for the "vibecession."

Rehashing economic sentiment may seem pithy at this point in time, but I think it’s important to get our bearings before the geniuses in charge plumb the depths in the months and years to come. And it’s coming.

With that in mind, the overall public perception of the economy has left me and many others flummoxed over the past couple of years. You’ve heard it all before, and I’ve written about it before: Americans feel that the economy was bad, when all the data and indicators seem to say otherwise. The stats were telling. Less than a year ago, almost 60% of Americans believed we were in a recession—and yet, we’ve been nowhere near a recession.

I’ve thought a lot about this. I’ve tried to make sense of it. I’ve seen a bad recession. Most of you have, too, unless you’re 15 years old. I don’t think you could honestly look around in recent years and think, “yeah, the economy is in tatters.” 

But you can see it in the economic sentiment measures. Things bottomed out in July 2022:

This may be what sunk Biden. And possibly Kamala Harris. Trump basically ran the same play he did in 2016—“the economy is bad, I can fix it, American carnage,” and so on—even though it wasn’t true then, and it isn’t now. I’d argue that we’re in a much, much more perilous position now than we were even a few months ago, let alone three years ago.

That said, I did come across some reporting that has helped this all make a bit more sense to me this past week. Let’s be clear, again: I think we’re about to get a dose of reality as it comes to recessions. I think the first go-around, Trump mismanaged the economy, which was a big reason we experienced inflation in recent years—some might disagree with me on that, but who cuts interest rates when things are chugging along, and cuts taxes when the country actually needs to raise revenue? It didn’t make any sense.

Regardless, the piece I am referencing was published earlier this month in “The New York Times,” and if I were to summarize it as best I can, I’d say this: The economy is doing really well, but it’s come at the expense of pretty much everything else. That, I agree with. At least, I would say that I agreed with it up until the past month or so—because I really don’t know where things stand as of writing. 

The story analyzes a host of data and indicators, showing that the U.S. economy has outperformed every other in its class since 1990. Again, that seems to track, if I were to just use what I know off of the top of my head. Again, though, there’s the catch: That performance has come at a cost: 

“But by many other measures of well-being — especially health and happiness — the U.S. fares worse than many other rich countries and has fallen further behind since the 1990s.”

Give and take

The takeaway itself is derived from a sort of “report card” called the State of the Nation Project, which was released in early February by a group of economic scholars. And again, to reiterate, the main takeaway is that we’ve managed to become an economic juggernaut by grinding the American people into dust—the cost was the well-being and living standards of many Americans. Not everyone, of course, but it’s clear that many people aren’t sharing in the growing prosperity, and are frustrated by it.

As such, economic unrest and insecurity are rife. We simply don’t focus on, or make a priority of promoting the health and happiness of our citizens. Instead, we focus on the numbers at any cost: Make those lines go up and to the right, no matter what. While it may be a bit too simplified (I think you should click through and read the Report Card and the corresponding NYT report!), here are a few charts that may put things into perspective.

To get this: 

We’ve had to accept this:

And, as the report sums it all up, “our rising incomes are not translating into greater perceived well-being and social relations.” That, in my mind, is the most important piece of the puzzle. We bought in, we made the sacrifice, and the payoff isn’t what we were expecting or hoping for. 

Here’s the takeaway, in more detail, from the report: 

“Our measures of perceived well-being, especially in life satisfaction and mental health, are all going in the wrong direction, even as our material well-being continues to rise. Research has generally suggested that “money buys happiness,” at least to some degree, but our trends on these measures are moving in opposite directions. We also see declines in our relationships with others, including social isolation and half of the trust measures. Given the importance of social relationships in our lives, these two trends are probably related.

One possible general explanation is that rising income is still improving our perceived well-being, but other factors are acting more powerfully to offset this and make us feel worse off. Another possibility is that the way in which we are pursuing material wealth is directly reducing psychological and social well-being. We encourage future investigation about the possible explanations.”

Vibecessionists weren’t completely wrong

I don’t know if there’s a solution to all of this—if there isn’t, it certainly isn’t an easy one—but it does make sense to me. And I think, as mentioned, that this is what’s at the root of all the dissatisfaction with the status quo. So, as it relates to recent economic sentiment, I do think that people have been wrong. The economy has been strong. But they’ve also been correct in that things…aren’t that great. It’s just that the rosy data outshines the rest of it. And that rosy data is what we’ve chosen to pay attention to.

To bring it all back: The “vibecession” wasn’t completely off base. But I fear that our recent choices are going to bring us much closer to actual economic pain than most people were hoping for.

Remember: You can reach me at sammbecker@gmail.com with your thoughts, insults, or anything else.

Remain ever vigilant!