Two truths can be true at once: AI may be utterly transformative; Wall Street may be in over its skis. For your 401(k), the lesson from the dot‑com era: diversify broadly so you catch the wave without betting the house on Pets dot com 2.0.

He said: "Prices are down under Trump.'

Me: "It is quite literally false. There's not a single way you can interpret a word that the man's saying..as being remotely reflective of either what we're seeing in data from all across the country or in people's everyday lives."

It can be hard to do math in your head, while standing up, on national television. Nerve-wracking, too. But even so, in twenty seconds on the air, I did a better job than the President in costing his latest idea and figuring out whether his new idea of a $2,000 rebate check will work. (It won't.)

"The punters have never felt more dissatisfied with the direction of economic policy than they feel right now."

I can’t swear on TV — but my face does it for me. You can probably guess what it just said about the President’s latest nonsense.

When prices rise because *demand* is hot, wages usually follow. When prices rise because tariffs raise costs -- a *supply* shock -- there’s no reason paychecks catch up. That’s why tariff inflation hurts a whole heckuva lot more. It's a permanent reduction in living standards.

The market’s AI run-up yields two plausible stories:
1) A genuine productivity revolution that lifts living standards;
2) A classic overhype that ends like 2000.

Surely the right stance isn’t certainty; it’s humility, diversification, and an eye on the long run.

"isn't that just the conversation we've been having now for years, which is how does someone look the American people in the eye and lie to them? How should you respond as someone in the media? And how should I respond as an economist?"

Let's talk about Trump's tariffs and the constitution. On Slate's What Next podcast.
slate.com/podcasts/wha...

Trump's tariffs are hurting us in two ways:

First, the obvious: Higher costs → either lower profits or higher prices.

Second, more subtle (perhaps bigger): We’ve signaled we’re an unreliable partner, so allies are reorganizing supply chains to avoid us. That's hard to unwind.

"Mate, if any of those numbers were true, you know, we could all be on yachts right now. It'd be terrific. I don't know why the bloke doesn't just say eleventy gajillion and get on with it. When you're making numbers up, just be transparent about it."

If the Supreme Court rules against the President, expect it "move our chaotic trade war that was really chaotic-and-settled, into merely chaotic, back to extremely chaotic again."

"it's a symptom of a deep and abiding dysfunction that Republicans, despite holding the presidency, the Senate and the House, can't fund the government and can't even get themselves to get together in a room to strike a deal."

It's the first Friday of the month and we got no jobs data for the first time in 77 years. Hold me.

"there's a whole lot of public servants right now... drawn to the job by desire to make the world a better place, who are feeling... that maybe the world doesn't love them very much. And they're worried they're not going to get the wages they not only need, but the law says that they're owed."

"To me, as an economist.. the much deeper, much harder question is, what is the national emergency? President Trump claims that it's bilateral trade deficits. If you talk to any economist with a pulse, they'll tell you that bilateral trade deficits are the most uninteresting thing in the world."

"Well, congratulations, America. We did it. They said you'd never do it, but we've gone 35 and a half days without a government."