Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

Justin Wolfers is back with Stacey Vanek Smith to break down three of the biggest stories in economic news. Starting with the arrival of new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh — and the question of which Kevin Warsh will show up for the job: the inflation hawk from the Great Recession, or a more political figure likely to echo President Trump's calls for lower interest rates. Next, Justin and Stacey cover Bond Market 101, with Justin explaining why the U.S. government sells Treasury bonds, why investors buy them, and what rising long-term yields signal about inflation, oil prices, and the national debt.
Finally, they dig into the stunning collapse in consumer sentiment, and why Justin believes these historically bleak numbers reflect something deeper than a bad economy — namely, a crisis of confidence in the people managing U.S. economic policy. At the same time, Stacey points out the affordability crunch is very real, with inflation hitting some summertime staples especially hard.
If you enjoy this episode, please rate and review — and check out the link below to weigh in on Justin and Stacey's bet about midterm gas prices on Manifold Markets!
https://manifold.markets/StaceyVanekSmith/will-national-gas-prices-in-the-us
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What happens when students can’t instantly reach for their phones? In this episode of Diving In, Justin Wolfers breaks down the latest research on school phone bans and finds a result that’s more complicated—and more interesting—than many parents, teachers, and policymakers expected.
Here's the broader lesson: removing a distraction does not automatically create a better outcome. In economics, that’s the problem of substitution. If less phone time turns into more sleep, conversation, or focus, that’s good. If it turns into some other kind of distraction or conflict, the gains are smaller.
For parents, teachers, and anyone trying to build healthier tech habits, the stakes are personal. A little friction can change behavior—but what you put in the phone’s place may matter just as much for your family, your kids, and your own mental well-being.
Check out the full paper here: https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/effects-school-phone-bans-national-evidence-lockable-pouches
📈 Key takeaway: Phone bans can reduce use and improve well-being over time, but the real question is what fills the space the phone leaves behind.
🔔 Don't forget to like and review!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this follow-up to an episode diving in to the federal deficit, Justin Wolfers responds to audience comments and questions including: where are interest payments going? Why can’t the government just print more money? And how do changes in immigration impact our ability to pay back our debt?
If you'd like Justin to answer your question in a future segment of The Professor Is In, leave a comment below.
And don’t forget to rate and review!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Pentagon said the war with Iran has cost Americans $25 billion. But that number only accounts for missiles fired and equipment destroyed. The true cost of war is measured by the future we’ve given up. In this video — my Director’s Cut of an Op-Ed I wrote last week for the New York Times — I explain why that figure is dangerously misleading and show you the math for a less precise, but far more honest answer.
Using the economic concept of opportunity cost, I walk through six methods for calculating the war’s real price tag, tracing the clues through oil, interest rates, geopolitical risk, the stock market, GDP, and future defense budgets. Each of these prove that this war is not costing tens of billions — but hundreds of billions, and quite possibly trillions.
Every number answers a question, and the Pentagon's $25 billion answers a very small one. Here, I'm asking the bigger one: compared to the world we had before this war, what have we lost? The answer should concern every American household.
NYT Op-Ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/08/opinion/hegseth-war-cost.html
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Diving In, Justin Wolfers breaks down the economics of the Met Gala using two big ideas from economics: signaling and non-price competition. The basic point is simple: the high price of luxury goods isn't a bug in the system, it's the whole point. So instead of competing through discounts, brands must compete through spectacle: celebrity placements, giant flagship stores, fashion shows, editorial buzz, and events like the Met Gala — which Wolfers argues is a less-bad outlets for wasteful, non-price competition.
In fact, the real scandal may be that Met Gala tickets are underpriced. If brands capture enormous media value from the event while the museum gets only a relatively small share, then the Met may be giving luxury houses a very good deal. The stakes here go beyond fashion. This is a lesson in how markets work when buyers care about status, not just usefulness—and how that affects where money gets spent, what gets built, and how prestige shapes the economy around you.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.