The Problem With Jon Stewart - The Irrational Economy with Richard Thaler

Episode Date: February 4, 2026

With economic systems failing millions of Americans, Jon is joined by Nobel laureate and University of Chicago Professor Richard Thaler, one of the founding fathers of behavioral economics. Together, they explore why conventional economics fails to account for how people actually behave, discuss Thaler's approach to improving systems from within, and debate whether incremental improvements can meaningfully reform broken systems. Plus, Jon talks Nationalizing Voting, Suing Trump, and Bad Bunny vs. Kid Rock! This episode is brought to you by: MAGIC SPOON - Get $5 off your next order at https://magicspoon.com/tws SHARK NINJA ESPRESSO MAKER - Get $60 off the Ninja Luxe Cafe Premier Series with code STEWART exclusively on sharkninja.com while supplies last AVOCADO GREEN MATTRESS - Get 15% off mattresses at https://AvocadoGreenMattress.com/TWS FACTOR - Eat smart at https://FactorMeals.com/TWS50OFF and use code TWS50OFF to get 50% off your first box, plus Free Breakfast for 1 Year. QUINCE - Go to https://Quince.com/TWS for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Producer – Gillian Spear Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With Amex platinum, almost every purchase made with your card can be covered with points, including new tastes, new fits, and virtually everything in between. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Conditions apply. Hey, everybody. Welcome once again to the weekly show podcast with John Stewart. My name is John Stewart, and we're going to be talking. You know, this has been, I feel like the news of the world has so matched the climate, the climate, here in the Northeast, which is dark and gray and apocalyptic, and this feeling that we are hurtling towards something just truly unimaginable and inexplicable. And it's why today, I just don't even want to fucking deal with it right now.

I, you know, in all these different ways, today's show is going to be slightly different. We're once again, every now and again, we'd love to bring on experts, people of such regard and note to come. and play with me like, let's say, a person with a cat and like a little string toy, me being, of course, the cat, those individuals being the person. And today we want to talk about, you know, our ability as a country to fix the seemingly intractable systemic problems, more economic. And who better to do that with than an economist?

and an economist that has in some ways changed the way that economists talk about the incentives that go into our economy. He is a behavioral economist, which is something I didn't even know that there was. But a brilliant thinker and another in our continuing series of brilliant thinkers, we obviously had Jeffrey Hinton on who explained to me in childlike terms, what AI actually is, and I'm sure this guest will be no different. So I'm excited to get to it. Let's jump in now. Richard Thaler. So, ladies and gentlemen, in our ongoing efforts to entertain and educate, we once again are going to welcome somebody to the program who is so accomplished and smart that it'll be entertaining to watch him play with me. like a monkey with a small grape.

That's right. Our guest today, a professor from the University of Chicago, an American economist, the founding father, one of the founding fathers, of behavioral economics, and awarded a Nobel Prize in Econ in 2017, which I assume he will be giving to Donald Trump because that's where everybody has to give their Nobel prizes.

But please, Richard Thaler, Thank you for joining us today. It's a pleasure, John. So most people think of economists as macroeconomists, microeconomists, then there's this idea. You sort of created this field called behavioral economics. So if you could just very briefly, and I apologize for the remedial nature of it, what is behavioral economics? How does it differ from what we consider to be kind of traditional economics? And how did you even think of it?

Yeah. So I'll use one fancy word you may not know, which is pleonasm. Pleonosom. Wait, what? Pleonasm. Wow. So there's a guy smarter than me named Herb Simon who wrote a definition of behavioral economics and said, the phrase seems like a pleonasm.

What is that? A redundant phrase, meaning what other kind of economics could there be? Presumably, economics is about the behavior of people in markets. Yes. Thank you. So why do we need that? Well, the reason we need that is standard economics leaves out the people. They're all about the markets.

And then there are firms and workers and governments and countries. And consumers, they're all people. You pick up a big economics textbook. You'll not see the word people. There are agents. And these agents are, they're kind of like Spock in the old Star Trek series. Logical. Very logical and maximizing.

They're as smart as the smartest economist. So when economists make a model in terms of how a market is going to behave, the assumptions that they make are that the people that make up the model are logical, rational, and will behave in the manner that maximizes value in the model. Would that be right? Yes. And they do that in part because that's the easiest kind of model to write down. It works out for simple. Right. I mean, suppose you tried to write down a model of John wandering through Costco.

Okay. Choosing the optimal stuff to put in a basket, right? I mean, no one can solve that problem. It's too hard. So you simplify the modeling task by saying, okay, he's going to choose the best bundle. And that, the math is easy. Right. And then they add to that an assumption that people are selfish jerks.

Wow. I mean, you know, I don't want to say anything, but that seems like a relatively simple assumption. Yeah. Okay. So the idea is, well, what if we introduce some people? Because there are people run firms, people interact in markets. In fact, more and more, people are interacting in markets. in markets every which way.

Sure. Right? You can bet on anything now. But how would that manifest? So if I'm an economist and I want to make a model about, and I assume they model what would be the most efficient market for cereal. And they want to model how you would create that. How would introducing what you're suggesting change,

economic modeling, which I assume means you would be changing how policy is created, because policy I would assume then is downstream from economic modeling. Right. Good. Okay. So let's start with a simple experiment. Please. We go into a classroom. I actually brought a prop. What? A mug. What are you, carrot top? What are we doing here? Yeah. I got a mug. I got a professor. I got a mug. care. All right. So what we did was we go into a classroom and we put a mug. I was teaching at Cornell at the time. So it was a Cornell and Sygne.

Safety school. Let's just point out very quickly, safety school. All right. Yeah. Okay. William and. Sadden not? Sir? Sir?

We don't have time for this. Okay. No slurs. So Cornell is a very fine school. Yes. So every other student has a mug sitting in front of them. Okay. And their neighbor doesn't get a mug.

Okay. Okay. Now we have a market for the mugs. And we say, if you have a mug, John, you can sell it. Here's a price list. If it's $10, will you sell it or keep it? $9.50. And then you go down until, okay, I'll sell at eight, but I won't at $7.50.

Okay. All right. And then the guy sitting next to you doesn't have a mug. He has a price list, and each of the following prices will you buy? Okay? So half the people are buyers, half of them are potential sellers. Okay. So the mug's worth will be determined in this market.

Okay. Now, what does economic theory say? It says the value you put on that mug should not depend on whether it's sitting right in front of you or on the desk next to you. Right? Mm-hmm. Well, it turns out, so the mugs are distributed at random, what we should see is let's rank the people from highest to lowest on how much they like that one of those mugs. The half that like mugs the most should end up with them.

Yes. That's what traditional economics would tell you. Right. Okay. So about half the mugs should change hands. Oh, they're saying that they're assuming that there is a rationality to people's affection for the mugs. Well, then it doesn't depend on... Or randomized.

We did randomize. Okay. Right? They were handed out at random. Yeah. And the assumption is that the value you put on that mug shouldn't depend on whether it's sitting directly in front of you or adjacent to you. Right. Or in other words, whether you now own it.

And that will be the key phrase. And we'll come back to that. Right. You do realize I am failing this class right now. Yeah. No, no. John, you're asking. I am lost.

You're, you're, you're doing great. You know. All right. All right. You know, at current grade levels. Yes, sir. A plus plus. Oh, very kind to you, sir.

Do I have a mug? You know, you can buy one. All right. I didn't get a mug. Fair enough. Okay. So what happens? The people who have the mugs really don't want to sell them.

The people who don't have mugs aren't all that interested in buying one. There's no market. There is a market, but the people who have a mug demand about twice as much to give it up, as the ones who don't have a mug are willing to buy it. Oh. So instead of half the mugs trading, we get about 20%. Okay. So what's the lesson?

You know this old Stephen Sills song, Love the One You're With? Sure. I call this the endowment effect. That if you're endowed with something, you want to keep it. You won't give it out. But you don't have it? You know, okay. If the price is right, I'll buy it.

Right. This is a phenomenon we call loss aversion that if you have something, you're going to fight like hell to keep it. If you don't have it, it's a mug. You know. The mug experiment is the genesis of behavioral economics. If I can sum this up. because traditional economics would say half the mugs would change hands based on value and markets

and how they should operate in terms of people that have something and people that don't and people that want it. But what you've found is only 20% changed hands because of behavioral tendencies that were not included in the model. Correct. A plus. Come on, brother. I'm going to give you guys a little insight into who I am as an individual. There's nothing that I enjoy more than what I like to call a little breakfast for dinner. Now, breakfast for dinner, it's a treat it.

It takes me back to the childhood when you felt like, remember you get breakfast for dinner? And you were like, we're breaking all the rules. What? Scramble eggs? Where am I? What world is this? Magic Spoon. It gives you that feeling.

Saturday morning cereal, while you get there 13 grams of protein. zero sugar, five grams and net carbs per serving, which is how I always chose my cereals when I was younger. I used to say to my mother growing up, how many? What's my net carbs here?

Five grams, seven grams? What are we dealing with? How much protein? In this bowl of chocolate Dracula cereal. That's right, count chocolate. Man, did I eat like crap? But this stuff, magic spoon, it keeps you fueled,

whether it's breakfast, late nights, snack post workout, whatever it is. Magic Spoon. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. There are plant-based versions of the cereal as well. Even vegans. It'd feel like they had a challenge. You'll find vegan options at Whole Foods or get $5 off your next order at magic spoon.com slash TWS. That's magic spoon.com slash TWS for $5 off. So this all sounds, if I may, insane to me because there could be somebody who is like People have called me worse. A mug fetishishish.

But the idea that economics don't take into account because buy low, sell high takes into account greed. It takes into account you're trying to get value. It seems like basic economics does. Let me give me an example. Yeah. Suppose that your uncle gives you an inheritance. Sentimental. Is it a mug or is it something different?

It's like a thousand shares of some stock. Okay. But my uncle gave it to me. Your uncle gave it to you. All right. So you send it over to your wealth manager or broker or whatever. All right. The 1,000 shares I got from my uncle.

Yeah. And then the question is, do you keep them? Let's ignore taxes. Okay. Do I keep the shares or do I sell them? Or do you put them into an index fund? Okay. Well, economic theory would say the fact that you, if there are no tax issues,

the fact you got those shares from your uncle, if you wouldn't have owned a thousand shares of that company before, You shouldn't now. Just put it in with all the other stuff. Don't do anything with it. Don't. No. Just keep it.

No, not just keep it. Diversify the way you would everything else. So those thousand shares should be turned into some should be in higher risk, some should be in medium risk, some should be in fixed income. I should split that up in the manner that I would split up. any asset that I have. Exactly. That's what standard economic theory would say.

Right. Standard economic theory says the best thing I would do is to do that, but behavioral economics says I won't do that for a variety of reasons. One being maybe I'm lazy, two being maybe I have sentimental value to my uncle, and therefore those thousand shares are the only thing I have to remember him by. Apparently, I didn't take any pictures. I just have this thousand share inherited. So I'm not going to do that.

And so the standard economics misses all those externalities that are part of the human condition and therefore their models suck. Well, we'll not make a value judgment quite yet. Too pejorative. Too pejorative. You can say that. But let me just add that notice one result of this,

experiment is people have a tendency to just stick with what they have. So if they got a mug, they're much more likely to end up with it than if they didn't get a mug. Okay. I see what. Okay. Possession nine-tenths of the law. So and standard economics doesn't take in possession. And how far would this possession theory skew economic models if they don't take it into account. For instance, I have a house, so the theory of economics would be I will continue to try and get better, more valuable housing or diverse, rather than just holding it since I have it. Yeah, and it's that particular house. So we call this status quo bias. Okay. People have a tendency to just stick with what they have. Yes. A body at rest tends to stay at rest.

Exactly. Do they really not take this into a? in standard economics, that seems insane to me. Like, is that really something they don't consider? They would consider it if there's transaction costs, but in the stock example, there are none. The cost of changing a thousand shares of Google into put that money into an index fund will cost you $10, right?

So if it was an offer to buy your house, then there would be costs to moving and making. Yeah, it's pain in the ass. Right. But for most things, the economist would assume that because the cost of switching things around is low, we can ignore it. So how does this manifest in markets?

Because I want to, the reason why I want to talk about this, and I'll give the broader example is, you know, things like climate policy. or the ACA or those kinds of things. These are solutions to, because economics is in some ways, it's the lubricant that we use to create solutions to problems or better conditions for people's lives and how that affects all that. And I think the premise here is that standard economics misses.

And so the solutions that we design for the problems in our lives are ill-conceived. Great. So let's take climate change as an example. Great. All economists, including this one, think that the first thing we should have done when we figured out there was climate change is impose a carbon tax. That way.

Most economists think that? Yes. May I suggest that that's incorrect? You may? But I'm included in those. Can I say why? I think it's incorrect. Yeah, sure.

So the minute you put a carbon tax on, people see their energy prices go up and you will no longer be serving in office politically. Okay. But all right, then we're in agreement. What I'm saying is if you're God or king, you know, or president and you could say, all right, what policy should we have, then the correct policy. is the one that sets the prices to give people the incentive. So if we increase the cost of heating your home to reflect the externality, the cost you're imposing on other people,

then you'll have the correct incentives to put in solar or insulate or switch to a heat pump or whatever. And so, yeah, we run a poll of expert economists every couple of weeks at the University of Chicago, and there is one on that. And, yeah, everybody says, yeah, that would be the ideal policy. So they're saying a carbon tax would be the thing to solve the climate crisis, because rather than changing the behavior, you have to make using fossil fuels, which are the driver of climate change. so much more expensive that it changes people's behaviors because they won't change behavior on their own. Is that standard economics or is that behavioral economic? No, that's standard economic.

That's standard. That's standard. Feels behavioral, but that's standard. No, it's standard because it's just changed the price. And then the alternative is we say you're not allowed to have, we can't have, we can't have cars that get less than such and such gas mileage. Which we've done. We have, right.

So we have lots of regulations. Okay. We essentially don't have a carbon tax. So the way we do it is, so standard economics, what they say is we have a series of either incentives or regulations. So it would sort of be a mix of subsidies and regulations. and that is how we will manage the energy market while also keeping an eye on trying to reduce emissions.

And that's how economists would design a program to solve it. So we've done that with we subsidize solar, we subsidize electric vehicles, and we regulate the miles that they must get there and they must have a catalytic converter all that is what you would consider to be standard economic theory. No, no. So we're almost fair.

I am fucking this up. You are not. You're not. So what economists would say is we don't need all those rules and regulations. Just set the price right. But doesn't the market set the price? Doesn't isn't that free markets? No, the carbon tax will automatically raise the price.

of a Hummer, of operating a Hummer, because it only gets eight miles to the gallon compared to some EV. So we don't have to regulate. All we have to do is get the price right. That's standard economic. And then the market will change. Then the market will change. But isn't that just an intervention? How is that a market?

That's just the government saying, if we set a price that is unreasonable, the market will behave. It's just setting the price so that you have the incentive to act in a way that's best for society. But that's not economics. Economics doesn't take into account what's best for society. Yes, yes, it does. What? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm, well, let me hold on here. Economists know about externalities. And now, here's the point I want to make. We don't have carbon taxes. Why?

Because, and you started with this. You got to the answer right away. You got to this because people hate taxes. They hate high prices. So what do we have? We have lots of subsidies. Yes. We have no taxes.

Well, we have, that's not exactly. I mean, we have gas taxes. Like if you go to California, it's very different than buying gas. in New York, very different than buying gas in Minnesota. That's right. But even in high gasoline tax states, the taxes on emissions are still way too low compared to what they should be. Compared to what they should be if our goal is to reduce carbon emissions. But that's not the goal of economics.

The goal of economics in a capitalist system, is to make the most amount of money for your shareholder. So my point is, since when is economics about improving the human condition and not just making money for the companies that are extracting the fossil fuels from the earth? Isn't that everything else is interventionist? Okay. So I did not anticipate that my role here was going to be as the defender of Neoclon classical economics, but here I am.

Oh, we're here, baby. I am here. All right. You know, my economist friends will be proud that I'm defending them. All right, beautiful. So, look, there's an economist named Arthur Pagu. Oh, Pagoo's work is, I don't miss an essay. Yeah.

So, no, he's died a hundred years ago. Oh, that's what I meant. Anyway, there are Paguvian taxes. So in any economics textbook, it will say that if you're causing some harm, then the way to fix it is to charge you for the harm you're causing so that you will decide just the right amount of harm. Is Perguvian familiar with the 2008 financial crisis? because that is not what happens. Okay, no, I'm not saying any economist thinks that we have these optimal policies. What I'm saying is...

That's how it's supposed to work. That's the way any economists basically would have advised, you know, take any council of economic advisors before this one, because they always had real economists. They would all be saying something similar to, well, what we really should do is this. But then they would say, but it's true, boss, the people hate taxes. And if they're Republicans, they really hate taxes. But we all hate paying taxes.

And so we'll do, we'll subsidize EVs. We won't tax hummers. and we won't tax gas and we won't tax. And that all goes back to the mugs. That it's because we hate losing more than we like winning. So what we'll do is we'll have all these policies where we subsidize you to do the right thing as opposed to penalizing you via prices for doing the wrong thing. Folks, you love coffee, but you think the names are lame.

Sanka. Maxwell House. Lame. I don't want to drink somebody's house. Well, this episode is brought you by Ninja Lux Cafe. That's an espresso maker. It's bringing your favorite coffee shop into your home, and it has a cool name. So you can feel decent about drinking it.

This Ninja Lux Cafe espresso machine, it gives you the quality brew without having to give the barista your name and then have them read it dripping with contempt. Maybe you're a latte guy, a latte gal, I don't know. I'm going to finish it with fancy microphone. They got that too. Burista assist technology handles the details. Grinding, weighing, brewing. You don't have to.

Ninja Lux Cafe makes cafe quality without the guesswork. And without the drive to your coffee shop. Listeners of this show get $60 off the Ninja Lux Cafe premiere series with Code Stewart. exclusively on shark ninja.com while supplies last. That's $60 off the Ninja Lux Cafe Premiere series with Code Stewart, exclusively on shark ninja.com while supplies last. This is the problem, I think, that we get to then with the economics, because let's say we'll bring it back to climate policy.

Yeah. What I'm suggesting is all markets are designed to some extent. extent. We sort of have this fiction that we live in a free market where it's only the rules of supply and demand and that our policies have to, you know, basically give way to these market forces that if left to their own devices, we'll solve these. What I'm getting at is government intervention in markets is seen as a negative and paternalistic anti-capitalist movement where muckety mucks and elites design systems that are not as efficient and functioning as capitalist markets. But we all know that that's a fiction that we intervene in markets all

the big thing is always the government's not supposed to pick winners and losers, but they do it all the time and they've done it since time immemorial as governments. Okay. So there's are two different issues here. Putting a tax on a bad like pollution isn't interfering with markets. It's making the market efficient in the sense that the price people are paying reflects the cost they impose on others. And it's not picking winners and losers. it's picking, there will be losers. People who like to drive gas guzzling cars will lose, but we're not aiming it at them.

It's a free choice. No, they won't lose because, let's say, that's because they have the money to burn. It doesn't affect them. In other words, the downstream cost of the pollution that they create won't affect them because they are, buffeted either by geography or wealth so that the tax itself is... No, but look, let's think of what we did. What did we do? We subsidized EVs. And who was the

beneficiary of that? Mostly rich guys. But we also, the EPA regulated what you could put out into the environment. I mean, that's how we got cleaner air when the government regulated what you could actually do. That's true. but the choice to have subsidies and regulations, it benefited some companies versus others. Tesla was a big beneficiary of this. Exactly. No, I'm saying government always picks winners and losers

and then pretends like that's something that they can't do. Well, but Donald Trump's a great example. He's like, government can't pick winners and losers. Oh, Navidia, I'll let you sell chips to China if you give me or Intel. How about this? I'll take 10% of your company. Like, I guess what I'm saying is, aren't we all operating under a fiction? And if we were more, if we were more honest about the way economies worked,

we could be more honest about the way we solve some of these larger scale problems. So, okay, you're skipping one step ahead. I don't want to do that. Take me back. Take me back. In a world where we don't know any of the people and any of the companies. So we're back in the world of inside an economist's head. We just have, there are firms and there are people and there's something people are doing

that causes harm to others. The solution to that that all economists agree to is put a price on that bad and then let market clear, and the people who produce bads will suffer, and if they're poor, they'll suffer more, but that's true of all policies. And that part is uncontroversial. I'm not saying that's a world we live in. In fact, my point is, so economists don't live in the world that we live in. No, no, they live, they would say this is, they would call this a first best, meaning if they could design everything, that's the way they would do it. They would try to make the prices reflect the harms of their people causing and then let the chips fall where they may.

That's very different from giving contracts to your buddies, which, you know, has been going on at the local level, as long as, long as there have been politicians and buddies, we've just taken it to new levels. Is the idea behavioral economics to help economists get more grounded in what the actual externalities are? Is that the point? Because the way you're describing economists and the way that they talk about the economy seems utterly removed from reality to some extent. No, no. Okay. So, I'm the worst student you have ever had. Oh, John. You are so far from that.

These are very good questions. All right. Let's get to it. All right. So the point I want to start with is economists don't have a good answer to the question. Why do we have only subsidies rather than taxes? Mm-hmm. because as far as economists are concerned, they're the same.

It's just a sign. If we subsidize the good thing or tax the bad thing, you know, if there are red mugs and blue mugs and the red mugs... In their model, they see no distinction between a subsidy and a tax. And what you're saying is a tax is actually much worse than a subsidy in real world. economics because people view losses as more damaging than wins, which is the subsidy. Perfect. You nailed it.

All right. So if we're trying to understand the world, it's important to understand this thing about losses and about status quo bias, that the people tend to stick with what they have. and we can use that to help or hurt people. So how would you taking behavioral economics, staying with the climate model, if an economist would say,

it really makes no difference whether you do a tax or a subsidy, but very clearly we only do subsidies so somebody must understand the political realities of all this. How would a behavioral economist because here's what I'm trying, trying to get to. We've understood since the 70s that the world is warming through our climate

policies. They've had Kyoto treaties and they've had giant conferences every year where everybody flies private jets to discuss how we're going to change fossil fuels. And they all work through subsidies and caps and cap and trade and net neutrality and all these different goals and things. and nothing has really changed. We've made certainly advances in solar and wind and batteries and EVs, but the energy needs of the world continue to spiral and AI. My point is everything we've done has been utterly inadequate. And I guess I'm trying to figure out what are we misunderstanding about the solutions

and how can behavioral economics give us a better angle on it than the standard economics and the standard political realities which have failed us? How would you change the way? Okay, good. Yeah. So what have we done? So almost 20 years ago, I wrote a book with Cass Sunstein called Nudge. Yes, I remember Nudge.

It was a book about. how we can help in this kind of situation. And so here's one example. All right, we're in this world where gas guzzling cars are too cheap. And we all would like to put a tax on that, but we can't. Well, one thing we can do is we can put labels on the cars telling you how much it's going to cost you to operate this car. Well, that will help a little.

Right. Like a food labeling will help you with health. And if people see like, oh, this car is going to cost me $6,000 a year to buy gas for, this other car is going to cost me $3,000 a year to buy gas for, that's a piece of information that will help me make a decision. And that decision, we think, will also be better for the environment. Right. And so those are little things, nudges that move us in the right direction. Right.

Another example is you probably get a utility bill that I'm guessing you personally don't look at. Oh, I look at it every day. That tells you how much energy you use compared to your neighbors with a similar house. Ooh. You're going with economic benefit and then also shame. Game and no, and patting on the back. Ah. Right?

Yeah. If you've put in solar or a heat pump. All right. Oh, John. Most guys with McMansions like yours. You are misunderstanding my neighborhood, sir. They would in no way. They'd be like, what are you a pussy?

What are you doing over there? Okay. So in any case, my co-author, Cass Sunstein, was the so-called regulations czar for President Obama for a while. And his job was to make sure all the regulations that were being passed did more good than bad. A series of nudges that would incentivize people through a variety of psychological, some would say manipulations. But understanding that, that could drive our economy incrementally to a more positive, climate future. Let me ask you a question. Are we in a nudge economy or should you write a book called shove? Because, you know, it feels like the incentives and subsidies are all inadequate

to address the reality of people's behavior and the totality of what we face. Why aren't we redesigning the entire systems. So Nudge has two sets of critics. Okay. One would, you could think of us complete free market guys that's saying, go away, let markets do it. Yeah, but they live in La La Land. Yeah.

Then there are the others saying, come on, we have to tell people what to do. My next book should be called shove. Yes. Let me. Yeah. But you go ahead. and then I'll explain why I think I'm different than those two, but go ahead.

There's at least one of my colleagues has written such a book, and I will point out to that person and you that if we're in that world, sometimes Trump is president. So if we want to design a system where the government just tells us what to do, as opposed to nudge us, Wouldn't that be worse? Well, first of all, the government tells us what to do all the time. I mean, any regulation and all those kinds of things. No, no, but you're saying we should shove. We should shove.

Let me explain what I'm saying. All right. So when I say shove, I don't mean the government saying to people, you are not allowed to use this much electricity or you are not allowed to use this much gas. When I say shove, it means understanding what. But the 10,000 years of, you know, human endeavor and progress on this earth really means. We are a species that if shit's easier, we will do it that way. Like the horse didn't go by the wayside of the car because, you know, of anything other than like, wait a minute.

I can get there in half the time and not have the smell of horse shit done. Like, we are incentivized to, you've given me a product that makes my life easier. We don't care where the electricity comes from. When I say shove, it's this. It's stop thinking incrementally about the subsidies and the thing. People want the convenience that modern life has provided them, whether they live in the global south or whether they live in our thing. And shove means these incremental systems and with all its political peril and all those

things aren't what's actually going to solve the problem. Shove means looking at mitigating the damage that human beings in all their greed and convenience need. In other words, shove is not telling people what to do. It's getting scientists to help us clean up this mess, meaning carbon capture or other types of models because what you won't be able to do through a series of nudges is make people not want the most efficient, convenient, cheapest thing that they can possibly get. And anything that doesn't take that into account is naive.

So I'm not suggesting a paternalistic government that decides, oh my God, climate change. and we've got to be better people and how do we incentivize everyone to be better people? I don't think, I mean, my view is you can't. You actually need to think completely differently and create a model that creates robust markets in damage mitigation and carbon mitigation. Right. That's my position. Okay.

But what I would say is that position is, I did. identical to the one that you mocked as the standard economic prescription, which is set the prices right, and then people will have all the incentive to invent the new technologies to solve it. If the carbon prices are right, then people are going to pour all kinds of money That's only one way of doing it, though. That's setting the carbon price is not necessarily the only way to do it. The other way to do it is create a market for mitigation.

That's what I'm saying. It's not just about carbon. There will be a market for mitigation, but if it doesn't cost you much to emit carbon, then people won't buy it. No, it's not that people will buy it. It's that you need to create a market for profit for companies, not people. That, John. Am I, am I nuts? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. You know what's interesting about the avocado? And I've never really thought about this. But when you cut it open, you get that perfect little scoop with the little indentation. Have you ever thought to yourself, I bet that's comfortable to sleep in. Almost looks like a body shape where you can just lie there. And that's the genius of our sponsors,

avocado green mattress. It is, they've taken the beauty of the, the restful beauty of the inside of an avocado and turned it into a mattress. It's not made of avocados, obviously, that thing would spoil in God, 30 seconds. But it's called avocado green mattress. They sell mattresses, pillows, solid wood furniture. What more do you need?

And no pits. It's all made for material. designed to support healthier living and more restorative sleep made without the harmful chemicals. Can actual avocados say that? Probably not. They only use certified organic non-taxic materials. They even have sleep trials, you know, of up to a year to make sure you get the best mattress for you. Avocado green mattress, it is brilliant. Avocado, dream of better.

And now they're having a great sale on mattresses. go to avocado green mattress.com slash TWS to get up to 15% off. Avocado green mattress.com slash TWS for up to 15% off mattresses. Avocado green mattress.com slash TWS. But then explain to me how nudge is going to, you know, everything we've been talked about is this is an urgent crisis. And all the nudging and subsidies is only. incrementally inching us to something. Meanwhile, you have a whole global South that hasn't developed the progress at the pace that in the global North has. And now we're telling them,

you have to do it through these series of subsidies and markets. That seems unrealistic. It seems more realistic to go to Exxon or wherever they are and go, we'll give you a shit ton of money if you can figure out how to clean carbon out of our atmosphere. Well, but we wouldn't have to go to them to do that if the prices were right. But what I'm saying is if you live in the reality of the world, look at the yellow vest movement in Europe. Like even Europe with their, we're doing the right thing and we ride our bikes everywhere, when you set the carbon price not to the market of supply and demand, but to the idea

of what would be best for the world, you may. make yourself politically untenable. And that's to me the largest problem. We're in agreement. And the... You just said I was out in a... Wait a minute. No, we are in agreement.

No, but John, you want to have it both ways. Professor, I'm going to... When are your office hours, Professor? I'm coming in there. This grade, C-minus. Man, you know what? I've given you office hours at 8 a.m. California time. This is the first time I've ever had office hours at 8 o'clock in the morning, John. And I have a long career. Point taken. Objection sustained. You know, you have office hours anytime you want, but it's going to be starting at 10 my time. Henceforth.

Works better for me, too. So let me move to one direction. Yes, yes, yes. GPS. Okay. If you have to, I, you do leave home occasionally, I hear. Pretty occasionally, so that's not a ton. Yeah.

You know, before we get off the topic of status quo bias. Yes, yes. you know, some people have called me the first clinical economist that I feel. Because of the psychological aspect of what you do. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think there is some danger you suffer from status quo bias syndrome. Oh. Tell me more.

You know, I'm always up for having a new illness. Yeah. Doesn't like leaving home. Yeah. No questions asked, though. Starts every show with some left-handed scribbling. Yes, sir. It looks sort of panic.

Oh, by the way, if anybody would see it, there's no artistry there. It is really, it's just. Brittany and her team have been told. Our producers, yeah. Yeah, they tell me that there's a lot of status quo bias syndrome. In our boss. You're saying inertia.

There's a lot of inertia. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I got you. I would add continuing to root for the Mets for... Oh, sir. Yeah. No, I'm...

If you're saying that I somehow seem to be in love with the type of pain, you know, yeah, masochism runs in my family. I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for the following statement and then I will move on. Yes, please. I don't think there's anything wrong. with firing your team. Oh, sir, you're treading on very dangerous ground right now. I also grew up in New Jersey. This type of heresy, sir.

Galileo was killed for less, sir. Yeah, I know. I know. We may not want to air this episode, you know, because I think we both could get burned at the stage. Not at all, not at all. But I grew up in North Jersey. So I grew up a Yankees fan.

in the mantle and Maris glory years. Sure. And then I grew to hate George Steinbrenner. And in my class on managerial decision making, I had one of my rules, don't be like George Steinbrenter. Fair enough. Okay.

You're saying don't go to jail for any violations of certain shipping rules. No, no, I mean, don't hire and fire the same manager three times. Okay. But George Steinbrenner did win championships. He did, but not in a way that... You enjoyed.

Or I approved of. Okay. And so I fired the Yankees. All right. And I'm just saying you should, you know... Yes. But after you fired the Yankees, they apparently still had a job. So what I'm saying is that firing has no impact.

Look, my son suffers from this. When he was a kid, he fell in love with the dolphins. Well, great uniform. Dan Marino, I'm assuming that was the Dan Marino era. Great uniform. His wife and two daughters. Yeah. You know, they live in San Francisco.

They all adopted the Niners. And they have to put up with that turquoise and orange. Yeah, yeah. You know, the cost he's imposed. So is the point. you're making here, if I may, is the point you're making that I am not giving humankind enough credit for an ability to adapt to understanding that the long-term harms, that our short-term actions are taking, are damaging us, and that if I'm just nudging them enough, we will understand that long-term, that the short-term,

pleasure is not worth the long-term harm. No, I mean, what I was just doing is giving you a little shit. But let's get back to climate change. GPS is my favorite kind of nudge. And I have geographical, I'm sort of geographically dyslexic. Right. And GPS is like saved me. I can wander around in a strange city and find my way back to my hotel all by myself.

Normally I need my wife. You're a big boy. By the hand. Yes. Now, and my motto, my mantra is design policy. Make it easy. Yes. That's my mantra.

Make it easy. You and I are agreeing. Okay. You can't tell people to go back to paper maps because, so let's say we found out that GPS emits something through the towers that they use and the satellites that is heating the environment. Nudging people back to maps isn't going to work. And so what I'm saying is you have to create shoves that create new avenues and new incentives that allow people to still. enjoy the benefits of that progress while mitigating the day you have to you have to look at it. We don't, nobody's required to use GPS.

But it's better. It's exactly. Right. That's my point. And oil and like energy is better. People need energy. And and a lot of the suggestions from governments is let's use less. Okay.

So bear with me, John. Yeah, please. Let's switch. to a different problem. Let's do ACA. Let's do healthcare. Because that's another one that I think in terms of its incentives and subsidies, but it's nudging a broken system when we should be shoving.

By way of retirement saving. Because I. Yes. Okay? Because that one, we did a little thing. All right. So one of the problems economists ignore is that people have self-control problems. You know, we're fat.

We drink too much. We don't save enough. Dark vision. We, you know, look around. Open your eyes. Social Security was kind of a way to mitigate that, no. Yeah, but it's not. It works pretty well for one segment,

which is people who have regular low-paying jobs. the replacement rate is kind of okay, but if you're in and out, not so much. And for the upper middle class, Social Security isn't enough really to live on. And we used to have these old-fashioned defined benefit pension plans that guaranteed you an annuity depending on. how much you made and how long you worked. And they got replaced with these 401K things. Right. And those pensions were generally matched by employers

and they were part of the responsibility and compensation package that you would get from the old world of you went to work at a factory and you left it 45 years later. Right. And you just, you had no decisions to make. And with the new 401K, you had to join and decide how much to save,

and how to invest, and that was hard. So, and a lot of people in the early days of these didn't even join, and the company was matching their contributions, it's the dumbest thing, it's turning down free money. So how did we, I'm not going to say fix this, but improve it. One thing we did was we said, it used to be, if you wanted to be in the 401k, you had to fill out a form. We said, okay, let's change the default.

People are good at doing nothing. So we send them. You're not a fan of people, sir. We go back, rewind the tape to the diagnosis of John, right? Yes. Okay. So you got now get, you now get, you now get. get a message saying, welcome to our firm, we're going to enroll you in the 401k plan

unless you fill out this. Right, right. So you made it so that the opt out took an action, whereas the opt-in did not take an action, therefore incentivizing the opt-in, which is the better outcome for people in terms of money. Right. And incentivizing just by changing the box, Right? So again, regular economists would assume it doesn't matter what boxes ticked. Would they really? Like they don't, regular economists don't take into account pain in the ass, like that level of it? They would say the cost of ticking a box versus six percent of your salary. I mean, really? Here's what I would say. Businesses understand that. That's why your credit card bill is unintelligible. Like, when you read all that fine print, you have no idea what you're reading. And that's

purpose obfuscation. It's purposeful. They understand that people aren't going to wade through that. They're not going to understand that, wait a minute, after six months, this goes up to 21%. They they understand how to manipulate us all the time. Absolutely. All right. We are exactly on the same page. Yes. The system is designed to exploit us. And people are. don't have an ability to understand that because of the way that the system is allowed to be designed. Right. And look, making it opt out is good for people. And we improved pension plans just by switching which boxes ticked.

No, that sounds like a very smart move. But, of course, companies learn the same trick, not from us. or at least I'm not taking the blame. Reverse engineering. Of course. Nabisco makes chips that they design them so that they're almost impossible not to eat. You get fat. And then Big Pharma makes GLP ones.

And that makes it so that you control your appetite. So then Nabisco has to engineer that to get past. I mean, this is the cycle of exploitation. And I mean, that's, again, that gets back to the incentive here is greed. It's that's what we're doing. And that's why I'm saying nudges sometimes are inadequate and shoves. Yeah. Okay.

I totally agree. So far, the only thing we disagree about. Mets, the Mets. Yeah. Okay. The two things we disagree about. How long do you think it's going to take you to cook dinner tonight? What do you think it's going to take a 30 minutes, 60 minutes?

It takes me about four hours because I like to have it roasted by the sun's heat. And put the ingredients together and just lay it on a windowsill. And whatever happens, happens. That's why I'm always hungry. But Factor is bringing you deliciousness in two minutes. Factor meals are already made. Chefs designed by dietitians delivered to your door. You just heat it.

Two minutes. Not by the sun. Whatever, however you heat things. They got proteins, they get veggies, healthy fats, no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, No refined seed oils. Seed oils. Choose from 100 rotating meals every week. The meals are fresh.

They're never frozen. There's no prep. There's no cleanup. There's no mental load involved in getting a healthy meal. Head to factormeals.com slash TWS 50 off. And use code TWS 50 off to get 50% off your first factor box plus free breakfast for a year. That offers only valid for new Factor customers with code, qualifying auto-renewing subscription purchase.

Make healthier eating easy with factor. The two things we disagree about are the Mets. Yeah. And whether getting the prices right would be sufficient. So let's look at the ACA. Because the whole idea there is if we create a market for insurance, we'll get the prices right and we'll subsidize for the people. people who can't because to get the market to be efficient, we need everybody to be in it.

And to get the insurance companies to allow everybody to be in it, we're going to have to make sure that we subsidize them because the markets include people with preexisting conditions or people who are not healthy and the insurance companies don't want to deal with that. So we do little nudges about you can check this box because it's a very complicated market. And I look at that and think, we are papering over a broken system with nudges when we have to shove ourselves into what makes the most sense for health care, which is, which every other developed country in the world has already realized, which is free market incentives don't work in a system with those kinds of externalities. Health care is not, will never be a functioning market. And the system is designed to exploit people's need to not die. And by creating the ACA and all those other things,

we're papering over what should be the reality of the system, which is centralizing it, is the only way to create something that will efficiently help people not die. That's where I would crystallize my argument in all. of this. Right. And obviously, we're going to have no listeners left if we, if we, we don't have. Yeah. All right. Yeah. If we go all the way down that path, here's what I will say. I was actually in the White House while the catastrophic website that was being designed for ACA, which crashed on the opening day,

somebody was designing that. And I was talking to somebody I said, could. Wait, you were in the White House while that was going on? While they were not while it was crashing before that, when somebody was designing it. And I said, oh, can I go talk to that guy? And they said, oh, yeah, go see that guy. And they show me some screenshots.

And so here's what a behavioral economist thinks about. They had to, somebody had decided that the plans should be grouped into categories and the categories should get labels of metals, like platinum, gold, silver burns. Oh, sell like time shares. And so I said, why should we do this?

And I never got an answer of what the theory was for why. I think the theory is like credit cards. Like you get a platinum, you get a black card, you get a, you know, one is basic,

one has got some frills, the other is free drinks and food. Right. But then, down at the bottom, there was another category, and it didn't get a medal. It was called catastrophic. I said, wait a minute. So catastrophic policy is one with a high deductible. It only helps you if you really, if the shit hits the fan. Yeah. But economists, a lot of economists would say that's probably the most efficient policy. But my comment to these guys,

was what you're not calling one of the brands catastrophic, right? We've got platinum, gold, bronze, catastrophic. And they say, yeah, well, that's what economists call those plans. But my comment would be catastrophic is how I would categorize the choice to treat healthcare like it's a product that companies. like health insurers haven't already figured out how to exploit for maximum profit to the detriment of people who we always know people don't shop around for health care. Making it more transparent doesn't mean they'll shop around. They want to live. They want to go to the best doctor that they

can who is nearest to them, especially in an emergency, they don't get a choice. And for us to continue to treat this as though it is some functioning market that we can do our usual games of subsidies and labeling to fix. My point is that's a market that needs a shove. Yeah. Okay. So I'm going to make two points. Yeah. One is some friends of mine and I ran a quick little experiment, simply changing the name of the catastrophic policy to economy or value in our experiments reduced the number of uninsured by 10%. Right. That was good.

It's better to... No, no, no, no. I'm not saying there isn't goods to be had through that. All right. That's point one. Let me say this. Are there still people who go bankrupt because they get sick? Have we fixed the problem that needs to be?

No, we have not. Are there still people that... Okay. All right. So here's my... Don't let perfect be the enemy of good is the point. Yes. And if we're striving for perfect, you're absolutely right, John.

There are vested interests. The hospitals, the insurance companies, the doctors, the doctors that don't want nurses to be able to do a lot of stuff. And pharmacists are the most overtrained people in the economy because they end up working in some god-awful Walgreens. Right. Meanwhile, it's the benefit managers that are making all the money because they're the middlemen setting the prices.

Right. But if we allow ourselves to be satisfied by these incremental positives and not let perfect be the enemy of good, don't we lose sight of, don't let insane be the enemy of sane. Or don't let sane be the enemy of insane. Like if we have a system that is like blatantly insane, aren't we, yes, you make all these improvements. I'm not suggesting that there will ever be anything that's perfect, but if we continue to accept such a broken and corrupted system as our only option is incremental improvements within that, aren't economists and policymakers and everyone else robbing us of an opportunity

because sometimes you need to view it on not to go with the other terms of economics, but the macro, not the micro. Right. So what I would say is, you know, Mark Cuban has a little company that... Sure. It's very smart. Very smart. But why doesn't the government do that?

Well, because all of the vested interests. That's my, okay. Well, but that's my point. Okay, but look, suppose you say Medicare for all. Medicare for all that want it. Yes, great. Right. So language matters.

Sure. And having a system that people can buy into. Anybody that wants to join a system. so that you remove the possibility of going bankrupt because you get sick, to me is like the baseline of a healthy society. Well, so I would go further. Yeah, please. My plan would be, if we're going to start with something, I wouldn't start with that.

Okay. I would start with catastrophic insurance for free for everyone. Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm a behavioral economist. I'm with you, baby. All right, you've graduated. Let's go, bets.

Oh, he was so close. He was almost there, you know. So, you know, we can't ignore all the vested interests. No, but they're the ones we should be nudging and shoving, not consumer. I think we're always shoving on the wrong end of the horse. Well, but the problem is that there's all those vested interests have lots of money. Right. And they support both parties and they will make it difficult.

But that's the job of governance. I would say, here's what I would. love for economists and behavioral economists I think could play a big part in this is to help us understand that you know the founders looked at the system and said there's going to be a balance a power checks and balances between the executive and the judiciary and the legislative but there's another power and that's corporate power and it's really the fourth branch of government and maybe one of the most influential branches and the only thing that we have in this country that is powerful enough to in any way mitigate that is the government.

And if the government refuses to take a courageous stand in mitigating that, damage, the damage of green. You know, I remember Alan Greenspan was on my show in like 2008, 2009. It must have been exciting. Oh, it was tight. He was only at that time, I think he was 98. Now, he might have been 103 at that time. And I asked him, you know, the financial crisis of 2008, like, what the hell happened? And he goes, I think we overestimated the bank's ability to regulate themselves.

Yeah. And I was like, do you mean you were idiots? Because that's insane. Well, you know, but we, look, we, the Fed, the Fed is probably the, you could argue the best functioning branch of the government. And certainly you can argue it's got the best, at least right now, best trained people working for them. And it's a well-functioning branch of the government. And, you know, that may all change. I think I believe the plan is already in place to knock down the east wing of the

Fed and listen, you know, we have a mutual friend, Austin Goolsby. Oh, I love the Goolsby, you know. Love him. And he's the president of the Chicago Fed. Come on. I love, I love Gouldsby. Yeah. Tell him I said a lot.

Tell him to come on this show. Well, right now, he's in the Fed. He's not allowed to talk much. Yeah. And anyway. That's tough on him. He's funny. You know, he's actually really funny.

No, he's very funny. Yeah. No, I like Gulsby. So where were we? We were tearing down the fabric of capitalist institutions and reforming them. The problem is we wouldn't know where to start. And there is just, you know, if Mark Cuban can't do it, I mean, I don't know, just any one step. So like my version of free catastrophic for all, I think is a good place to start.

But it wouldn't eliminate the power of the American Medical Association to limit what physician's assistants can do and the insurance companies and all the benefit managers and all the layers. It's above my pay grade to think about. And you know what? It's a great place, I think, and I've so appreciated your time and your office hours. You've been so generous with them. And, you know, I was taking this thing pass fail anyway. So the idea that you gave me all this time. No, no, I don't allow pass fail.

What? No, no. I'm not going near you, man. But, you know, there's great non-disclosure. That's where I'm at. So. Let's do that. Let's do that.

Yeah. Okay. But I think the point that I think, maybe I love coming to is this. I love the idea of those really smart, incentivized nudges and those things, but not allowing that to remove our higher aspiration of actually looking at the logistics and the guts of something

and getting systems that are not as exploitative. that, you know, government has to have a larger role in mitigating the damage. Look, capitalism is the operating system we have. Yeah. But it's clearly not a free market. It's intervened in by governments and all kinds of other corrupt actors and the crony capitalism that goes along with it. And my point is let's continue to do those really smart things that you're talking about, but we cannot lose sight of the larger goal, which is to,

that a government has to be there to help mitigate the collateral damage that the operating system we've chosen to use often creates. Yeah. And we need another show, John, to figure out how to get there. Oh, but we will. We can. Yes, we can. The audacity of a hope, baby.

Yeah. Yeah. You're a good man. Professor, thank you for joining us. Professor Richard Thaler, University of Chicago, one of the founding fathers of behavioral economics, the 2017 Nobel Prize in Econ, which is sitting on Donald Trump's fireplace mantle as we speak.

But is up for sale. Up for sale. Up for sale for the husband. You know what? And you can get that and a Cornell mug, I'm assuming, for just seven, seven dollars more. Or a nudge mug.

There you go. Excellent product placement. Thank you so much, Professor. Thank you, John. Pleasure to meet you. Pleasure to meet you, too. Hey, folks. It's Quince time.

Today's sponsor, Quince, helps you forget about all the fashion nightmares. Quince, they bring together the premium materials, the thoughtful design, the quality. You stay warm, you look sharp, you feel your best. Each piece made from premium materials by trusted factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. But they cut out the middleman. I don't like middlemen. Do you like middlemen? Maybe you're a middleman.

Maybe you do like middlemen. But you cut out the middlemen and you cut out their traditional markups. Quince delivers the same quality as these luxury brands at a fraction of the price. Refresh your winter wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash TWS for free shipping on your order and a 365. day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's quince, Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash T-W-S. Free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash T-W-S. Man, my favorite part of the interview, if I may, was how slowly he talked to try and, I really felt like,

I think he was about like 10 minutes into it when he was like, hmm, I'm going to have to change my here because little brain is not. No. Yeah, I don't think he was expecting that conversation. My favorite part was when he psychoanalyzed you. I think that was the first time that's happened on the pod. That is right. I got to tell you, though, he kind of fucking nailed it.

I mean, they don't give out Nobel Prizes for nothing, you know. No, I thought he did an excellent job. Did any of that resonate, though, with you guys? I think I get where he's coming from with that idea of like, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. But I don't know that they, if it's not to suggest that incrementalism isn't still a part of the equation. Of course. But I don't know if they understand the general frustration within the public. 100%.

I thought it was incredibly illuminating that a conversation about health care, his grievance or what his brain went to was the categorization. of shitty plants, like not having those categories, explaining in really big print exactly what these plans do does not mean they don't all suck still. Yeah, I think it's like, so if economists argue that you should choose the catastrophic plan because that would be optimal, and then behavioral economists argue we need to change the name because people aren't choosing the most optimal plan, then we need to find someone that will argue that the problem is actually that the most optimal plan is a plan that you will go broke if you need to use. Like that's the real problem here.

That was trying to explain. Like, aren't you just like polishing turds at that point? But I mean, I get his point that there is like, you did help some people. But I think sometimes that gives you license to ignore the larger totality of climate change, health care, of by incrementalizing, you also are forgetting that you have to maximize as well. Big structural change. Thank you. I was thinking a little bit when you were bringing up the subsidies, that's a shove, right?

And if we just think about the subsidy itself, this, the shove is even small in comparison to what we should be doing. We take away the subsidy. 1.5 million people drop out of the ACA marketplace. those are the people who are young who are holding up the system for like the 5% of people are really using it. But the whole thing's going to start crumbling because of this shove that was supposed to be a fix, which it's not.

That's right. I mean, I almost think he would still categorize subsidy as like a nudge and the shove would be the redesign of it. But they don't, boy, I thought he got really like, that was where he was like uncomfortable. Like you can't just, you know, you can't. bring your weight on insurance companies. That's not right. His pauses got longer in those moments.

It just got sad. That's when he went to like, you're a Mets fan, aren't you? But anyway, it was very interesting, very, very eliminating, I think, for me. What about Brittany? What do we got for the listeners there? What do they got there?

What do they want? All righty. First up, we've got, John, of all the Trump news this week, which development worried you the most? Oh, I think. the election. You know, with all the

elites are going to get out of everything I'm sort of accustomed to, as we said on the show last night, the real sanctuary city in this country, which is this privileged class that there is no crime they can commit that would have any kind of accountability to it.

But it was the raid on the Fulton County electoral board, along with his offhand remark about nationalizing the election only in, I think, the 15 states that caused him a problem. I'm just spitballing here, but what if I nationalize the elections in the 15 states that caused me a problem?

Right. Yeah. I mean, he's going to end up tariffing states to get them. And this was like a small related situation, but he actually called Tulsi Gabbard after assigning her that mission. Trump was just on the phone with her while they're doing. even assigning her anyway. What the fuck is the president assigning the DNI to an FBI? He's not supposed to be assigning the FBI to stuff. They're supposed to be independent. And she's also under

some top secret investigation while this is all going on. The whole thing is a mess. But I agree with you. What, what do you know what the investigation is? No, no, it's top secret. It's like locked away so that even Congress doesn't know because they don't want it to get out. It's in a safe, literally. I bet it's about the streak. The streak in the hair. No one knows. No, no. No, no. No, no, no, no, no. People are going to say, what is that? That's clearly, she's giving a sign to somebody. We hold our secrets in that.

Is it Putin? Yeah. Is that who would? Yeah, no, I agree with you. That's, and the problem is you don't ever think there'll be no accountability for any of them in the first place anyway. So they're operating under, as they would say, as J.D. Vance would say, absolute immunity, which is a fucking ridiculousness. What else do they want? What else do these viewers?

listeners. Yeah. Why can Trump threaten to sue everyone for a gazillion dollars, but no one can sue him back? That is a Zen Cohen. That is, I think I might have that. That was a, I believe that might have been a fortune cookie that I got the other day. That's one of those, the Buddhists will go to a monastery and they will sit there in silence for years pondering the question of why Trump. Now, to be fair, No one has been sued more than Donald Trump in my estimate. Like, if you go through his construction records, every fucking contractor he's ever worked with is like, hey man, you still owe me 15% of the money. And he's like, come and get me. Try it.

He's a victim. Yeah. Poor, poor, sweet billionaire president. Ooh. There have been some recent suits, but I think that, I mean, he's making so much money off. the presidency, probably go on forever, whereas people can't afford to continue these suits. Oh, they've got, I mean, the Supreme Court made it basically so that like he kind of, no matter what he does, you know, is sort of in the guise of his presidential duties, you're not even

allowed to do discovery. I think part of why you can't sue him is like, I'm suing you. Great. What evidence do you have? Well, I'd like to see your emails. Boy, I'd love to, but I don't, I don't have to. But his, you know, it's interesting. The, the, the, the. the mindset that he had as, you know, running Trump enterprises is the same as he has when it comes to be president. It's the exploitation he did like on all of his contractors. Everybody, people don't realize like so many contractors in New York City fucking hate that guy. Because his whole strategy was, I'll pay you just enough money to satisfy a certain portion of the contract. But I won't pay you the final 10 or 15 percent, knowing that you as a small contractor,

the hassle and money it will take you to try and recoup that won't be worth it. And so I will get myself 10 to 15% off of everything that I do. That's behavioral economics, right? We're tying it all together. One more, one more question. All righty. John, which Super Bowl halftime show will you be watching? Bad Bunny or Kid Rock?

Puppy Bowl. There's already good. Counter-programming. If only 20. Yeah, yeah. No, I always watch a Super Bowl halftime show. I don't particularly care who's on it. A, it's a continuity issue, behavioral economics, status quo thinking.

Nice. Innersia? I feel bad, like, I feel bad, not bad, but I mean, he's a superstar, but bad bunny. Like, the shit this guy's, he reaches the pinnacle of his professional career and a kind of global superstar to get the opportunity to do a halftime show. The guy's clearly a fucking extraordinary musician and entertainer who's earned this place. And the idea that he's facing a backlash. My favorite backlash to it is, you know, you got to get a fucking American in there. And you're like, uh.

Yeah. Read a fucking book. Right? Oh, yeah, yeah. The Jillian sigh tells us all we need to know. It drives me crazy. I love that bunny. Like, oh, he's going to kill it.

I can't wait. That's why I'm so excited. The game's going to be. a blowout. He's wonderful. He just won two grand, three Grammys Sunday night. Right. Um, plus he's really hot. So, really? He has kid rock beat in that element for sure. Yeah. Wait, so the bad bunny also has a little bit of a machismo, a little bit of a vibe gone. Oh, yeah. Interesting. You know, to be a musician versus a comedian, you know, this, this comedian, it's never done about comedians. It's always musician. People love the, it's something with the, the hips not line.

Well, listen, very, very lovely, guys. Thank you once again. Brittany, how do they stay in touch with us for all this? Twitter, we are weekly show pod. Instagram threads TikTok, Blue Sky. We are weekly show podcast. And you can like, subscribe and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with John Stewart.

And Instagram, baby, if you want to see all of my nasal pores. Join me on my page. Thank you guys so much. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedevik. Producer Jillian Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vitola, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, executive producers. Chris McShane and Katie Gray. We will see you guys next time.

The weekly show with John Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions. Podcasts.