Prof G Markets - The Economic Risks Keeping Paul Krugman Up at Night

Episode Date: December 5, 2025

Ed Elson and Scott Galloway are joined by Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, and distinguished professor of economics at the graduate center of CUNY, to break down what concerns him the most about this year’s economy. He weighs in on the affordability crisis, how the White House is handling AI policy, and where the media is headed.  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for this show comes from Nordstrom. Oh, what fun! Nordstrom has gifts for all your favorite people all in one place, like beauty sets, sweaters, jewelry and toys, with tons under $100. Need ideas? Check out gifts from Ugg, Skims, Dipique, Free People, Stanley, and more. Plus, explore their amazing gift shop in stores and online. Freestyling, free shipping, and order pickup, make it all easy. Add Nordstrom.

Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu, it's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of business.

businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odu for free at Odu.com. That's ODOO.com. Does it ever feel like you're a marketing professional just speaking into the void? But with LinkedIn ads, you can know you're reaching the right decision makers, a network of 130 million of them, in fact. You can even target buyers by job title, industry, company, seniority, skills, and did I say job title? See how you can avoid the void and reach the right buyers with LinkedIn ads. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a free $250 credit for the next one. Get started at LinkedIn.com slash campaign. Terms and conditions apply.

Today's number 2.4. That's how many hours on average people spend shopping online at work. I hate those little reminders that people who bought this also bought. Okay, those people are also emotionally fucked up in the head. Stop profiling me. Listen to me. Markets are bigger than I. What you have here is a structural change in the world distribution.

Cash is trash. Stocks look pretty attractive. Something's going to break. Forget about it. Ed? I made that up myself. I could tell. You could tell I made it up myself?

I had a great joke on, what was it? Oh, there's the Prof G show. I don't know if you know this. I have another podcast, Ed. That's right. And it was that I watched Jaws last night, but instead I watched it backwards. and it's actually the heartwarming story of a shark that helps disabled people recover their lives.

I think that's genius. Really dialing it back, and this was the question last week, should we dial it back? I thought the answer was no. I guess the answer is yes. We've got a dad joke about jaws and about shopping. Would you trust the judgment of someone

who takes the time to comment on a YouTube video? I mean, we love our fans. We love our fans. We love them, but not listening. into any of you. No shot. I always try to be positive in comments. I'm not getting into fights anymore with people online because I'm usually fighting against a bot, and then I find my erectile dysfunction gets even more dysfunctional. And so, Tanya, it's coming. You laugh now. You laugh now. Just wait,

my friend. Just wait. Tladenafil, which, by the way, is a generic name for Cialis. Just get used to it and it's less embarrassing to say to your nurse who's got or your nurse your doctor who always has like an attractive nurse in the room and you have to say I'm kind of interested in those trucks that um what is it how you say make dick hard I don't know who I'm imitating there I just know that's all kinds of wrong you know what actually our producers fucked up you know what today's number should have been what 30 why's that oh okay that's right there we go there we go Ed Ellson, 30 under 30, according to Forbes, which, by the way, I did not know Forbes still existed, but it is still very prestigious.

Very prestigious. And Catherine, we're on another podcast, Rachel Moderates, she came on. This is such exciting news. Ed just got 30 under 30 on Forbes, and I literally reflexively shouted out. That bit shows me everything. It's true. I do. I know everything. Tell us, how does it feel to be the 30 over 30 or 30 under 30? Yeah, it's nice. You know, the secret of the 30 under 30 is it's actually 600 under 30.

They keep on increasing the number of us every year. So, I mean, that's the sort of little footnote that we should consider. But still very exciting. Well, you join past alumni, including Mark Zuckerberg, LeBron James, Mila Cyrus. LeBron James. He and I have a similar career trajectory, I think. I think you're much more similar to Miley Cyrus, but that's his main. The guy who started Spotify. That's pretty good company. Also, Elizabeth Holmes and also Sam Bagman-Fried. I mean, if anything's going to happen to me, I'm going to end up in prison in the next two years, if we're being realistic here.

Let's bring this back to me. I peaked pretty early. I came out of the Gates Strong, out of business school. I started a strategy firm. Someone got me invited to Davos. I was literally 20. at Davos, and I thought it would just keep going uphill, just up into the right. And by the time I was 33, I was divorced, broke, and basically living like a caveman in New York, like occasionally leaving to try and go to the ready teller and get food and pursue sex unsuccessfully and then going back, retreating back to the cave. So that's what's coming next to you, Ed. That's what's coming. That's next up. Next up. I can't wait. You just got it, you can't let it get to your head. Oh, that's too late for that.

You're one of those quiet, conceded guys. You're always like, oh, well, I don't think about me, me, me all the time. I have to make you think that I don't think about me all the time. That fake British accent is about says it all. That says it all. Claire and I know you're from fucking Alabama. Anyways, what do we got going on today? We got a conversation with Paul Krugman, which is going to be great.

And I would also add that we are recording our annual Ask Me Anything episode next week. So please send in your questions to markets. profitymedia.com or drop them in the comments. Very excited about that episode. I think that's all I got before we got this conversation with a Nobel Prize winning economist. More importantly, along the same lines. Did you see me on Oprah? I didn't see on over, but I saw the photo of you and Oprah. Is it out yet? No, she and I just roll together. What do you think? Yeah, I was on her show. We're dating. We're dating. I just haven't seen the interview yet. We decided to come public with our relationship.

We were talking in the side channels. It strangely looked AI-generated that photo of you and Oprah went through. Yeah, it did look fake, didn't it? Everyone looked so happy. They didn't look like repeat. I had no idea what to expect. I know you want to know more about this. I do, actually.

I walk into a room, and they have filled the room with like a hundred young people, 80 of them are men. Wow. And they all proceed to ask me questions about mental health and what should I do. I'm having trouble connecting to relationships. And I'm like, dude, I don't know. When I was here, I was getting fucked up and approaching people in Irish bars.

I don't know. It was, I was literally sweating. And I had to basically start every sentence with, I am not a licensed therapist. I'll just give you my experience. And if it's helpful, great. And at one point I said to it was women, I'm like, I don't know.

I have no idea. It sounds like you're really, you know, it sounds like you're struggling. I have no idea. It was so uncomfortable. I think someone told them I was Dr. Drew or something or Esther Perel. You've got to assume that position if you're going on Oprah. You're not going to be doing hard-hitting economics.

You're going to be talking about feelings, right? My friend, Gail King, got me on the show. Gail King's my new best friend. She's super cool and nice and funny. Anyways, I was on Oprah. That's very cool. That's it. And now, Paul Krugman.

Let's get into it. Here is our conversation with Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning. Economist and Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Paul, thank you very much for joining us for the very first time on Profti Markets. Oh, hi there. We have to be on. Scott Cleland has an issue with the intro. We talk about Paul so much. I assumed he'd been on seven or eight times. We probably chose if we know you. We're parroting your data so much.

Well, we're slightly shut on time, so I want to get straight into the questions. I have so many questions for you, Paul. And the first is, you know, we're coming to the end of the year here. And a lot has happened. We've had a new administration. We've had Liberation Day. We've had tariffs. AI has exploded.

You have been writing about economics for years. You're a foremost leader in economics. Just at a very broad level, what has stood out to you in 2025? and how do you think 2025 is going to be remembered in economic history? I mean, it's a weird year, and that's all I can say. I mean, history doesn't usually give you, you know, clean experiments. It's usually more than one thing going on. But this year is really extreme.

On the one hand, you have 90 years of U.S. trade policy, abruptly thrown into the waste bin and replaced with very high tariffs. And on the other side, you have this AI boom, which is the biggest sort of, well, it's the biggest thing since the housing bubble, but the housing bubble was kind of on its own. And here we have the AI boom sort of colliding with and interacting with the tariffs. And it's a very, very bizarre economy right now. One of the things you've been talking about lately is affordability. And that's something that's been very prevalent in politics, most noted. probably with the mayoral election, where do we stand in terms of affordability in this economy right now? Clearly, we're seeing some growth in the overall economy because of AI, but the affordability crisis seems to be a kind of a different thing. The problem that we have in talking about affordability is that there is a simple thing, which is just your real income, typical

person's wage divided by the consumer price index, which is actually up a little bit. that since pre-pandemic. So we're actually not seeing the simple version, oh, prices are way up and everybody is impoverished is not true. Way too much reporting talks as if that was the story. But that doesn't mean that everything is okay. So once you start to look under the surface, you see, first of all, there are some real cost of living issues or just generally getting by issues. There's interest costs are way up, certain really critical things, above all. I would say that the cost of buying your first house are way up. So it's not, people are not imagining that there's an affordability crisis.

And then if we just sort of take affordability of kind of a proxy for how are things, well, it's, the economy is in some important ways worse than it looks. We don't have high unemployment, at least not yet. We don't have high inflation by historical standards, but we do have this frozen job market. where, you know, if you got your job, okay, but if you lose it or your new to the labor market, it's very hard to get a first job or a new job. And, again, I do think that, and I will be writing myself some more,

I think that the way that some things that are key markers or have been key markers of middle-class status are receding out of reach matters in a way that the normal numbers don't quite capture. We read a really interesting substack article recently, which has kind of gone viral by this guy, Michael Green, this asset manager, where he brought up, and I don't know if you've seen this, but he brought up this poverty line question, where, you know, the current poverty line in America that we all use is around $30,000, a little over $30,000. And he made the point that this is an old metric, an old measurement that we used, that, that, that, worked in the 60s, but no longer works anymore. And he came up with kind of an adjusted calculation and he landed on $140,000 as the poverty line. It's been very controversial. Some people said that number is all wrong. But the point kind of stands, it's like, well, we're all talking

about affordability. We're all trying to figure out what's going on for the American economy, particularly on the lower end. And this has really resonated with people. I just want to get your reactions to that article and this idea that perhaps that metric that we've used to measure poverty might be flawed. I actually have been aware of the article and not bother to read it because this is kind of a stupid point. I mean, you know, I sit at the City University, I sit at something called the Stone Center for the Study of Socioeconomic Inequality.

Let me tell you, my colleagues know all about poverty measurement. And, you know, poverty measure is one of those things where Basically, Lyndon Johnson needed a quick and dirty measure of poverty, and an economist of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Molly Arshanski, did a quick and dirty calculation, which somehow got stuck, and the original calculation was based on the cost of food, and since then has been just adjusted for the consumer price index and nothing else. I mean, Molly Arshansky did something really useful, and it turned out to be extremely useful to have a standard measure. poverty, even if it's somewhat arbitrary. But if you really want to think about poverty, there's one question which is, can people afford the essentials of living? And then there's a bigger, tougher question, which is, are people really part of the

broader society? Poverty as a measure of social exclusion is really what you want mostly. Most countries actually measure poverty quite differently. They'd say that poverty is having less. less than half the median income. And we can do that for the United States. And it does show that we've actually because of increasing inequality, poverty has risen over time.

And yes, the material standard of living associated with half the median income has gone up, but in some ways that doesn't help much. So this is the wrong approach. I mean, in some ways, it should just say, you know, poverty, smoverty, how are we doing? How many people are really effectively excluded from the economic mainstream? in America. And the answer is a lot and too many. And the, you know, we, for kind of almost bureaucratic policy reasons, we're kind of stuck with this poverty measure, but try to, you know, fiddle with it to make it better. It's not, that's really not very helpful.

It sounds like maybe you agree with the premise, though, which is that this idea of a poverty line is kind of an arbitrary and stupid. way to measure things with this question of how is America doing? And I feel like one of the larger points is like the economy is so much different today than it was 60 years ago. There are so many other things that we need to account for. You mentioned there that real income is up, but this affordability crisis is still a problem for all of the other issues that you mentioned, the job market, housing market, borrowing costs, all of these things, which seems to bring us to this question of Like, how are we supposed to measure the economy then?

If we can't rely on the poverty, we can't rely on income, what should we be looking at? I mean, I would say the poverty measures arbitrary, but not stupid. There was a reason for doing it. There's a reason why a lot of federal programs are key to the official poverty threshold because they have to be keyed to something. So if you look at what are the subsidy rates under the Affordable Care Act, they're tied to your income as a percentage of the official poverty line. And, you know, changing that would be kind of a nightmare.

It's just, you know, there are more important things to spend political capital on. So, you know, let's focus on what's important. And, again, we have pretty good measures of inequality. We have a pretty good sense of how many people really can't afford to be part of the mainstream of American life. They're all very troubling. So just we don't need the problem, the fault lies not in. numbers, but in ourselves, right? It's fundamentally a question of what kind of society do we want to have and how do we deviate

from that. And clearly, if the poverty line, you know, if they have some calculation, it sets the poverty line at a level that is, you know, way, way above where people actually consider themselves poor, then that's wrong. It doesn't matter what the details of the calculation are. So let's just say, are there a lot of Americans who are below some line? Yes, there are. If someone said we're taking in $5 trillion in receipts,

tax receipts, and spending $7 trillion, I wouldn't actually assume that we were either at war or trying to jumpstart or reverse an economic decline in malaise to get us out of a recession or depression. And yet, we're not. I mean, I don't think either those are true. And the fact that the economy is not surging with $2 trillion in additional deficit spending,

to me says that mass and underlying sickness that the economy is actually much weaker than people think. Your thoughts? Before COVID, a lot of us were talking about secular stagnation, which is a totally impenetrable set of words. Nobody, it gives you no clue of what we're actually talking about.

What it really was that we actually had persistently inadequate demand, persistently inadequate spending in the economy, and that interest rates were always extremely low And even that wasn't enough to really jumpstart the economy. It may well be that we would still be in that state if it weren't for these big budget deficits. And so that's a concern. It's also the case that advanced, stable rule of law nations that borrow in their own currency

have a lot of leeway to run up large debts. They can go a long way up that. debt-to-GDP ratio without getting into a financial crisis. Is that still a description of America? Are we, I mean, we're large, but are we stable? Are we a rule of law society? If I were an investor, wouldn't I worry about some current or future autocratic presidents deciding to just arbitrarily write down our obligations? You know, it's, so these numbers are troubling. And there, but we all know where it comes from. We basically have a political deadlock where we have immensely popular programs, I think deservedly so, like Medicare and

Social Security. And we also have a complete unwillingness to collect enough taxes to pay for them. To me, this feels unsustainable. When we're operating at what feels like it's not a good economy, not a bad economy, just what you call, I don't know, somewhere in the middle. And we've decided that it's a standard operating procedure to go 40%, you know, to spend 140% of our tax receipts. To me, A, I feel that's unsustainable. Do you agree and be when, and it's hard to tell when, but how does the music stop? Is it just when, I've never bought the people, won't show up for our treasury auctions. They'll just demand more payment in exchange for the risk.

Is there a limit? Do we go to, I mean, Japan's much higher than us, okay? But at what point does the debt become an issue? Britain had debt that was 250% of GDP at the end of World War II. But it wasn't the crisis because people said Britain is a serious country run by people who are not idiots, and they will in the end do what is necessary as they did to control their debt load. Now, the trouble is that we may not be a serious country. And more of the point that the markets may conclude that we're not a serious country.

And that's when the limit hits. It's not an arbitrary number. It's kind of a, who are we? You know, they're Stein's law. Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, with a, whose son was a much less funny comedian. But Herb Stein's law was, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. And Stein's law clearly must apply at some point.

But, you know, so far we haven't hit that, though, I have to wonder, I mean, the character of American governance has changed so much in this past year that you have to wonder whether any assumptions based on the kind of country we used to be still apply. But I put a lot of work on this. I actually was looking for at various times. I've looked for examples of countries that, like the United States, borrow in their own currency, have a high level of debt and are kind of politically parallel. but are not, you know, hyperinflation territory or whatever, and for crises.

And it's really hard to find them in history. I mean, we can talk about the French Frank in 1926, but it is really hard to, to, we don't have a lot of historical examples so that will help us understand how this ends. Sooner or later, it has to end one way or another, but how I don't know. We'll be right back after the break. And if you're enjoying the show, send it to a friend, and please follow us if you haven't already. And according to Zibiotics, here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for

your roughneck stay. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. As I've mentioned many times on the show, I enjoy drinking. I'm trying to drink less as I get older, but when I do drink, I oftentimes try Zibiotics, and I found that it takes away probably about 30 to 40% of kind of that gross feeling the next morning. Go to Zbiotics.com slash PropG to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use PropG at checkout. Zbiotics is backed by 100% money back guarantees.

So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to Zbiotics.com slash PropG and use the code PropG to check out for 15% off. the show comes from LinkedIn. If you've ever hired for your small business, you know how important it is to find the right person. That's why LinkedIn Jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant, so you can feel confident you're finding top talent that you can't find anywhere else. And those great candidates you're looking for are already on LinkedIn. In fact, according to their data, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor. That's a big

deal when every hire counts. With LinkedIn jobs, AI assistant, you can skip confusing steps and recruiting jargon. It filters through applicants based on criteria you've set for your role and services only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of resumes. LinkedIn Jobs AI assistant can even suggest 25 great fit candidates daily so you can invite them to apply and keep things moving. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash markets. Then promoted to use LinkedIn jobs new AI assistant making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's LinkedIn.com slash markets to post your job for free. and conditions apply.

Race the runners. Raise the sails. Raise the sales. Captain, an unidentified ship is approaching. Over. Roger. Wait, is that an enterprise sales solution? Reach sales professionals, not professional sailors.

With LinkedIn ads, you can target the right people by industry, job title, and more. Start converting your B2B audience today. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a free $250 credit for the next one. started today at linkedin.com slash campaign terms and conditions apply we're back with profity markets so one of the big themes of our show our talk tracks is that our economy has become more fragile because 40% of the s&P is represented by 10 companies and that if invidia announces a big company announces they're not getting the and they'd hoped regarding their investment in AI, Nvidia doesn't meet expectations.

And video goes down 60 or 70%, which I will remind people every one of the big tech companies has been down that much in a 12-month period at some point in the last 10 months or 10 years. And basically overnight, the S&P is off 10, 15, 20%, which represents a half of global market capitalization and immediately we're in what feels like something like a global recession, if not something worse.

Our sense is that that feels more likely than not in the next 24 months. Your thoughts? I think you and I, not Ed, but you and I have remember the 90s. I knew it was going to be that we're old. That only is. And there was, there's a lot of markers that feel like the dot com, actually more. more telecom in terms of economics, but the excesses of the tech bubble

are, you know, details differ quite a lot. And I have to say that this bubble, if it is a bubble, is an amazingly joyless bubble compared with the 90s. But sure, I think there's a, and we are in a situation now where, you know, but for all of that spending on data centers, we would probably be in a recession right now. And so it's not at all hard to see this going south quite suddenly.

And it's also, by the way, it does worry me that, and this was not true back then, that a lot of this is not only there's a few companies, but really the economy is being driven by the CAPEX decisions of like 10 guys. If a handful of people have a mood swing, they can take down the whole whole. world economy. To me, this all, all roads lead to the same place. And that is, and the thesis is that the cloud cover, I think the S&P and the NASDAQ are the worst metrics invented in modern, modern economy, because they create the delusion of prosperity and don't really say how people are actually doing or feeling. And without the cloud cover of the S&P being up, double digits, it'd be

much more difficult for the president to be sending a mass police, secret police, into big cities. and that he has a huge vested interest in the continued kind of lalapalooza of champagne and cocaine of the AI bet driving the markets. And to me, this all leads to one place. When I look at the expectations built into the forward earnings of these companies, I don't think it's sustainable. And all roads for me, or not all roads, I think there's a very big likelihood of then in 2026, we see some form of a bailout in the form of government-backed debt such that these guys can continue. is CAP-X, which seems to be propping up the market in the economy, a bailout of AI in the form of some quote-unquote government investment or government-backed continued buying or financing a CAP-X. Your thoughts?

I think maybe tempted. We certainly shouldn't think of this administration as having any, you know, free market principles. And so it's quite possible that they might want to do it. I remember 2008, and it's worth remembering that in the face of the absolute meltdown of markets, the first time that TARP, which wasn't a limited bailout of banks, the first time the TARP was put in front of Congress, it was voted down. I don't think it's that easy to engineer a bailout. I think that, and among other things, with people worried about the budget and the deficit and all of that. And this is, you know, this is really big.

I mean, the, it's one thing to, you know, bail out Silicon Valley Bank or something like that. That's a fairly small thing. But this would be really, really huge, really, really hard to justify. And one thing that is really clear also is that, You know, people hate AI. They hate the companies. They hate the people. This is the most unpopular boom.

I mean, you know, as I said, this is a joyless bubble. Compared with the 90s, everyone was kind of, you know, kind of feeling some good, there were some good vibes about the companies, even the ones that failed. So, I mean, it could happen, but I think that politically, it would be extremely difficult. It's really interesting. I feel like two big themes here, or one big theme in two stories, is that it feels as though we are artificially propping up the economy right now. And we've talked about it in relation to deficit spending, which is already kind of out of control, and now with the big, beautiful bill, it will get more out of control.

And the predictions are that it's going to grow our economy, perhaps the stock market, because we're going to spend so much money. And this is coming from the administration that said, we're going to balance the budget. So that's a whole other can of worms. And at the same time, you've got massive AI CAPEX investment, which is basically keeping our GDP growth positive.

And we're not yet seeing the underlying demand in the consumer economy that would warrant the amount of investment that we're seeing in AI, which I think leads, me and Scotland, probably a lot of our audience, to believe that whenever the music stops, because of the amount that we are artificially inflating everything in our system right now, it's going to be an extremely aggressive and shocking downturn. I just want to get your reactions to that notion.

The IMF once did a systematic study of how successful are economists at predicting recessions. What is the track record of economists at predicting recessions? And the answer is zero success. Might as well use a magic eight bowl as Ask Me or, you know, anybody else on this. There's just too many damn things happening in the world to be very good at this. Now, maybe it's worth saying that all the CAPEX on data centers are related, and I've been, the measures are kind of, but we're talking about something like 1 to 2% of GDP. So although it's a, that's not chicken feed, but that's,

that's not enough to produce a 2008-level crash. It's more like, so, you know, think more like 2001 than 2008. So it's not all that catastrophic if you try and do the math. Now, what the effects on sentiment might be, what the effects of falling stock prices might be is harder to say. But this does look crazy, but I think we probably don't want to go overboard, in terms of the scale of what's at stake. It will certainly be unpleasant,

and there will be demands that we bail this thing out and also furious pushback against those demands. But, you know, it's not the end of the world, which I can say because I remember the end of the world, right, which did sort of happen in 2008. So it's worrisome, but let's not get too over our skis on this. talking about the politics of AI. When you look at the way that this administration has been handling AI, and I'm really thinking about, you know, these dinners where you've got Zuckerberg

and Tim Cook showing up to the White House, offering gifts. I mean, it's, you said out there that these campaigns, it's not just in the hands of a few companies. It's really in the hands of a very, very small set of people. What do you make of how the White House is handling AI, handling AI policy right now, how do you think it will shake out politically, and where does this land in the economic story of America? Well, it's not clear to me that we really have an AI policy. It's actually in general, it's not clear to me that we have an economic policy at all. I mean, one of the things that is really, you know, for those of us who've spent decades

interacting with the policy wall community, what's really remarkable about this administration is there's nobody to talk to. There's nobody in there. You're asking who in the White House is thinking hard about AI and how it's going to affect the economy? The answer is nobody. There just is nothing there. And what's happening, this is more.

The dinners is these are all basically big corporate types, but especially, it turns out, the tech sector, although there are some others who are trying to butter up, the White House and look for you know so this isn't really policy it's chronic capitalism and you know they're doing what they have to do but

or they think they have to do although actually I find it interesting that Wall Street which is another source there's another big pile of money and influential people over there and they've been actually much less visible in all this not zero

but much less and I thought it was really interesting that Jamie Diamond was asked why, you know, we have the people who are helping the instruction of the White House and its replacement with a grotesque ballroom, and Jamie Diamond was asked why J.P. Morgan Chase isn't part of it. And he said, well, we need to think about what future DOJs will do. So, which was an amazing thing actually to say, although Couchton in deliberately bland language, but he basically thinks that a lot of people, there's a real possibility that a lot of people involved in policymaking right now are going to jail.

So it's a very strange situation, but there is no policy. I mean, if you ask, who's the point, man, on actual hard thinking about this? Well, maybe David Sacks. Part-time employee, yeah. The policy and the personal interest are so enmesh that it's not really policy as we knew us. Why do you think we've seen this divide between Wall Street and Silicon Valley. It's an interesting point that you make. Silicon Valley has really grown its ties to this administration in a way that, you're right. It seems Wall Street hasn't done, or at least not in the same way, or not as openly and outwardly. Why do you think that is? The Wall Street, people in time in particular, but in general, they've been dealing with government for a long time. I mean, Silicon Valley used to think that it was a libertarian paradise and didn't need government.

And now, all of a sudden, they're throwing cash at the first family. But they're not sophisticated in this stuff, and they probably don't have much sense of where the risks lie, whereas Wall Street does. And there's also, there's a personal thing. I mean, one of the things that I find interesting about this whole tech story right now is that it is being led in a large—I'm going to get in trouble for saying this. But it's being led in the large part by billionaires whose best days are behind them. Ten years ago, everybody loved Silicon Valley. Everybody loved tech. We thought it was a tool of liberation.

We had, you know, we even had biopics made about Mark Zuckerberg. And now everybody thinks of them as greedy monopolists, did the word of the year, I guess, two years ago, was Corey, Dr. Rosen, Shittification. So part of what's driving all this stuff is I think these are people who are sort of looking for something really big to bring back the glory days of 2015 or so. We'll be right back.

And for even more markets content, sign up for our newsletter at profjimarkets.com slash subscribe. Mercury knows that to an entrepreneur, every financial move means more. An international wire means working with the best contractors on any continent. A credit card on day one means creating an ad campaign on day two. And a business loan means loading up on inventory for Black Friday. That's why Mercury offers banking that does more, all in one place,

so that doing just about anything with your money feels effortless. Visit Mercury.com to learn more. Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group column N.A. and Evolve Bank and Trust members FDIC. The holidays are the perfect time for bad actors to try and pry your information away. Bit Defender is looking to stop them. Bit Defender was voted one of America's best cybersecurity companies by Newsweek

and a PC mag pick for its best tech products of 2025 list. Trusted by experts and businesses small and large, Bit Defender keeps your data, your devices, and your families safe from online threats. Whether you're concerned about privacy, protecting your identity, scams, or other threats to your digital life, Bit Defender has got you covered. Visit bitdefender.com slash trusted to see why experts and renowned brands trust Bit Defender to stay protected. If you're tired of database limitations and architectures that break when you scale, then it's time to think outside rows and columns.

is the database built for developers, by developers. It's asset-compliant, enterprise-ready, and fluent in AI. That's why so many of the Fortune 500 trust MongoDB with their most critical workloads. Ready to think outside rows and columns? Start building faster at MongoDB.com slash build. I think some people would say, I mean, we're seeing what appears to be certainly crony capitalism. Others would just say flat out corruption. And then on the other side, some people would say, oh, well, America has always been corrupt.

If it's Silicon Valley now, it was Wall Street 10, 15, 20 years ago. You know, our policy makers are always in bed with whoever has the most money. When you look at this administration and the economic policies in 2020, Where does it rank in terms of corruption? How corrupt is this administration compared with history? It really is on a different scale. I think even the Gilded Age looks relatively clean by comparison, but certainly compared with, look, we went through.

I was very involved intellectually and certainly talking with the players during the post-2008 financial crisis and the bank bailouts and all of that. And there was no question that big money on Wall Street carried a lot of political clout. But it was not, there was very little outright bribery, as far as we know, as far as I know. There wasn't, people weren't handing over bags of cash. they weren't, you know, buying meme coins or whatever, which didn't exist yet. It was more, there was a subtle,

not that subtle, but a relatively subtle influence. There was the revolving door. Government officials, you know, were always were thinking a little bit about their next job. There was just the prestige that comes with money. I mean, I did have a couple of meetings at the Obama White House, where a couple of, you know, people like Joe Stiglitz and me were

arguing for a harder line against the banks, and the bankers were, of course, arguing against, and I came out at both meetings saying, you know, we have a fundamental disadvantage, which is that they have much better tailors. It was never the case that we were, you know, a deliberative democracy based on principle. There were money always talked. But billions of dollars in personal rewards for the first family, that's something new in American history. Of all the things going on, all the risks, whether it's geopolitical instability,

deficit spending, AI, potentially an AI bubble, what worries you the most do you think it's not getting enough coverage? And then outline a scenario around the question we like to ask, what could go right? Environmental issues are, you know, should be top of the concern. And there's a terrible thing that's happening right now, which is that we've reached a moment when the technology actually makes it surprisingly easy and cheap to do a lot to limit climate change.

And the United States is just totally turning its back on this miraculous technology, which also has geopolitical stuff. China is taking the lead in green energy, and the United States is keeping defunct coal plants running. So that's what really scares me. Now, what could go right? You know, maybe AI really does generate a huge productivity burst. You know, and you can believe both that it's a bubble and that the companies, you know, the MAG7 or the MAG10 or whatever your group is, that they are massively overvalued and that the technology is really going to be transformative. It's like, you know, I spend time watching old ads from the 90s on YouTube. It's one of those great, well, technology does some great stuff.

And you look at the ads from Quest about all the wonders that fiber optics was going to bring. And they all came true. Quest then bankrupt. But, you know, the technology was for real. And it could, you know, if a persistent 150 basis point rise in the rate of productivity growth in the United States, States would make a lot of our economic problems just melt away. I'm surprised to hear on the top of your list in terms of risk, you're worried about environmental issues.

When we asked the question, the things that often come up are debt is often a really big one. Civil war in some capacity, largely as a result of inequality, the steepening inequality that we're seeing, is often a big one. I think that's probably number one for me. I'm surprised to hear environmental issues, so I'd like to hear more about that. So let me just say, I wasn't going to get into the politics, but no, I mean, my immediate concern, to ask what, you know, what keeps me up at night, it's, will America still be a democracy next year? Not even so much the civil war aspect as to, you know, we've seen this movie before.

We're, like, quite a lot like Orban's Hungary and at a couple, you know, a year or two into, into. into the Fidesh takeover. So, you know, that's what keeps me up at night. You know, that comes, I'm not sure about the civil war, more about just basically authoritarian coup. Let's just be frank about it. If you're not worried about that, you're not paying attention. And debt is, you know, we probably still have some running room on that.

So, you know, that will get resolved first. But the environment, look, the world is still emitting a lot of green. greenhouse gases. The thing about greenhouse, about emissions, is that they're cumulative. It's, even if we stopped completely emitting carbon dioxide and methane today, temperatures wouldn't start to come back down from generations. So this stuff, and if we continue, slowing the rate of growth of emissions, which is kind of the most that we can reasonably hope for right now, is not enough to avoid a really large set of consequences. So, you know, I don't own any real estate in Florida

because I don't think, I think that the, you know, just in the economic terms, we are very likely to see a whole lot of property damage and economic damage. So this stuff has receded from attention, but the reality continues. Why do you think it's receded from attention? I agree with you. This was sort of top of mind for many, many people, I would say maybe seven, eight, probably a decade ago. And for whatever reason, we've forgotten about it, or at least it's certainly way down on the priority list. Why do you think that's happened?

Well, if I think about myself and my friends, it's because we may suffer really terrible environmental damage 10, 15 years from now. but America as we know it politically is on the line now you focus on the most immediate danger and that's uh yeah and it's also you know the fact that that the political you know who who are you talking to I mean is there anybody certainly in in U.S. politics who was going to be moved by by what was said or wasn't said at the cop conference in Belain the other day right

It's, it's, you kind of work with where you, where you are. And I will say also, more positive, the fact that we, it looks like there is a path towards stabilizing the climate at a still tolerable level without sacrifice because of these miraculous new green energy technologies. That also does change the way that you think about it. Just before we let you go here, more of a personal question, you were a columnist for the New York Times for many, many years, you now kind of made the leap out into independent media, the new media sphere, which we kind of live in. You're on substack. Your substack has exploded.

People are absolutely loving it. General takeaways on what it's like leaving legacy media and now being in new media. What do you make of it? I will always be grateful to the times for offering me that platform. And the new media can do lots of things, but one thing you can't do is the kind of steady pound the pavement reporting that we still. I mean, if you look at what, you know, what do I reference in the substack? And it's a lot of stuff that's being reported by the New York Times and Bloomberg. You know, it's a, so we still need all of that. but I will say that there is a you know there's a lot more it's not just freedom to say what you want to say without without editors and being able to to not be polite sometimes but also just format the kind of stuff I do which often involves a mixture of of charts and and statistics and occasionally gets a little wonky for you know I can do that in which I would

really couldn't. I was just talking with some, actually I'm just talking with Martin Wolf about this, the great liberation of not having to have my charts look pretty. And so not having to wait three days for the graphics department to produce a chart that looks up to time standards and being able instead to just bang a crude thing out of Excel and PowerPoint that makes the point and I can do within an hour or two. Do you have any thoughts on just where media is headed? I mean, the New York Times is actually underfire just this week because they put out this article about David Sachs

and all the ways in which he's compromised and then suddenly he had this massive outpouring of pushback largely from David Sachs and his mates on the right saying the New York Times is compromised, it's woke, it's, you know, has an agenda. what do you just make of like what is happening to media at large and what do you think where do you think it's all headed and then we'll get you out of here? You know, assuming that we do manage to head off the authoritarian threat, then I think

the Times should actually feel grateful. I mean, it's kind of an FDR, I welcome their hatred. I mean, this is the, and the Times almost uniquely, I think in different ways a couple of other organizations have managed it, but they've managed to make media a, you know, a financially sustainable proposition with a paywall that people are willing to actually subscribe to. So they're actually a success story. I mean, in some ways

the problem is that only a handful of organizations can do that. And that is the great concern and how much we can rely on. I mean, it's great that I mean, what I value from Substack is

mostly, actually, the people who actually do reportage. some kind. People actually know something and can tell me about it. And that's great, but it's got its limits. And we don't know. I mean, we used to have a media, you know, that did its job based upon advertising. Now we have a media based upon paywalls, which is, works but for many fewer organizations. I mean, you know, local reporting has become as a casualty. The fact that it used to be that classified ads were the great savior of local newspapers, and now they're gone, and so are the local newspapers.

So I don't know how all this shakes out. I mean, eventually we have to find a model, but look, everything, in the end, technology, and the Internet have just shaken up everything. Paul Krugman is the Distinguished Professor of Economics, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He was a columnist for the New York Times from 2000 to 2024. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

for his contributions to new trade theory and new economic geography. Krugman was previously a professor of economics at MIT and later at Princeton University. You can check out his substack for his notes on economics and more. Paul, really appreciate your time. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks, Paul.

Thanks for having me on. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shillan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. Drew Burrows is our technical director, and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to ProfG Markets from Profugee Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday. in kind

reunion as the waters and the dark flies. In love for the show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more.

And the best part, Odo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try O-DU for free at Odu.com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-com. Support for this show comes from O-D-O-D. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing O-Doo.

It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, economy. commerce and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try O-D-U-for-free at O-D-O-D-O-O-O-com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-O-com. Think enterprise software is too costly, too complex, and takes too long to get up and running? Think again. Workday go makes simplifying your small or mid-sized business simple.

HR and finance together on one powerful AI platform right at your fingertips. Workday go gets you live fast and fits the needs of your business. Find out what Workday Go can do for you. Go with Workday Go.