Paul Krugman Podcast

Epizode

• 
  The Fire This Time 27.07.2026 8min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptSome say the world will end in fire. Some say in ice. Robert Frost wrote that in 1920. With more than a century gone by, we have a verdict. It’s fire for the win. Hi, I’m Paul Krugman. I thought I’d talk today about a story that should be getting even more play than it is. I mean, there’s so much going on, but, you know, Europe is on fire. There are massive wildfires in France and Spain that have forced the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, are menacing Bordeaux and not too far from Madrid. This, of course, follows on the enormous Canadian wildfires that for a while gave Toronto the worst air quality on the planet and turned the skies orange and the air foul across a large part of the eastern United States. And that, in turn, followed on that deadly heat dome in Europe that killed thousands of people. Okay. It’s pretty awful. It’s also something that was predictable and predicted. If you go back — I’ve been looking at a 2012 report from the UN, their climate project, that very clearly forecast growing incidents of extreme weather, extreme heatwaves, storms, flooding, and by implication, at least, wildfires. This was clearly in the cards. In fact, the story that somehow has not become standard is that climate scientists pulled off something that was extraordinary in intellectual terms. They got the basic outlines of what was coming and in many ways even the numbers on what was coming right decades in advance. In any kind of rational world we would be hailing them as heroes and very much listening to them about what we should be doing now. Of course where we are is that climate scientists are reviled. Climate change is almost crowded out of the political discussion and there’s a fair bit of actual personal persecution of people like Michael Mann and so on who are being punished for the sin of being right. Okay, of course, it’s more than just that. Now, there are sort of multiple levels to the climate story. At one level, it’s, you know, there are powerful vested interests that don’t want you to take global warming seriously. Fossil fuel interests are dying as an industry, but they’re dying slowly and they’re doing their best to take us all with them. And they have enormous influence in this administration. That feeds into something else, which is very true of the people now running the federal government, which is they hate science. So this is across the board. There’s almost always some financial interest, but it’s not just follow the money. It’s just a real hatred of the whole scientific enterprise. And so in an obvious sense, the climate denial is of a piece with the determination of RFK Jr’s health department to find a link between vaccines and autism. There have been many studies saying, no, it’s not there, but that’s not the answer they want. And they just kind of hate the idea of scientists, they hate the idea of objective research of any kind. And so that feeds right into the climate denial.And then, actually, it’s even broader and deeper than that. I don’t think you can really understand what’s going on in this administration without saying that there’s a kind of hatred of the intellect, not just science, but really any kind of hard thinking. I mean, at some, not very deep level, it’s an obvious correlation between Trump saying that the reason that we had fires in Canada is because the Canadians didn’t rake their forests, — all, by the way, two million square miles of boreal forest in Canada. You know, there’s just this absurdity, this kind of evil absurdity of the whole situation. And Pete Hegseth, having presided over the humiliation of the U.S. military because we were not ready for 21st century warfare and the Iranians were. So he’s busy suffering casualties and of course trying to hide them, suffering enormous damage and complete failure of war aims in the face of drones and missiles and basically this new world in which the Ukrainians are showing the way. This is warfare, which still requires some people, still requires enormous personal courage. But the decisive arms of battle are machines, fairly advanced machines, although cheap compared with the expensive hardware we have. And so here you have Pete Hegseth, faced with all of that, and he thinks that what the U.S. military needs is more testosterone. And that’s not a metaphor. Literally, he wants to give testosterone shots. The truth is that even the ancient Spartans didn’t win battles just by flexing their biceps. Intellect was an important part of war, even in the 5th century B.C. But now, above all, consider the craziness of thinking that it’s all about brawn and muscles and good grooming. Oh my god. But this is all hatred of basically anything that involves hard thinking. Again, the deep point is it’s not even exactly, I think, that people in this government are lying about climate, that they’re lying about military stuff. I mean, yes, of course there’s a lot of lying, but I’m not sure they even really have the concept that there is objective reality. And they certainly hate anybody who tries to argue that what they’re saying is objectively, empirically not true. How did we get here? I’ve been writing about oligarchy, and it’s certainly true that the big money — and the big money has never been bigger — that the big money has thrown its weight behind these deeply anti-intellect, anti-science people. This is in the long term, and not very long term, really against their own interests, but the short term lure of tax cuts and a corruptible government — because they’ve got the money to do the corruption — I guess outweighs that. And also, of course, quite a few of the mega-billionaires are themselves caught up in this. If we all get through this, Elon Musk and the general awfulness of the people who somehow end up with hundreds of billions of dollars is going to be a cautionary tale for generations to come. Anyway, that’s where we are. What can I say? I’d really like to not talk about depressing stuff, and I will now and then, but boy, we are in quite a state. And the sky is blue right now, so I guess I should go out and spend some time outdoors while we still can. Take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Talking Again With Gabriel Zucman 25.07.2026 52min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.In my writing about wealth concentration and oligarchy, I steal a lot from lean heavily on the truly work of Gabriel Zucman, who is a hugely important researcher (winner of the 2023 Clark Medal) who is also starting to play a major role in policy. I’ve talked to him before, but this seemed like a good time to bring him back.. . .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Gabriel Zucman(recorded 7/23/26)Paul Krugman: So, hi everyone. Paul Krugman here, bringing back Gabriel Zucman, probably the best guy for thinking about inequality, especially wealth issues. And since I’ve been writing about that and stealing a lot of Gabriel’s research, I thought we should talk again. So, hi Gabriel.Gabriel Zucman: Hi Paul, thanks for having me on.Krugman: Yeah. So, you have been writing—and now I’ve been, you know, cannibalizing it—a lot about wealth concentration. Why don’t you tell us about your reasons for focusing on wealth.Zucman: Basically, because there’s a fundamental tension in democratic societies between extreme wealth and the very possibility of a well-functioning democracy. And it’s not a new idea—don’t get me wrong. All the thinkers of democracy have written about this, all the way back to Aristotle, more than two thousand years ago.Krugman: Right.Zucman: But there was a period of time after World War II when many people thought that this issue belonged to the past. And it corresponded to a very particular moment in history when extreme wealth had largely disappeared after World War II, after the shocks of the first half of the twentieth century.But now, of course, it’s making a dramatic comeback. And so we are back to this discussion of: how do we deal with this tension? How do we organize the economy and our society to prevent the forms of capture of the political process, in particular, that are associated with extreme wealth?Krugman: Now, there’s a question. I mean, I’ve been on the inequality beat for an alarmingly long time—since you were a small child, actually. But in the early nineties, let’s say, it was all income rather than wealth. And a lot of it was top quintile, and maybe top one percent. And now you’re telling us that we need to focus on the wealth rather than the income of the top 0.0002 percent. Why that shift? Why wealth rather than income?Zucman: Well, it’s for two reasons. Number one is a macroeconomic reason, which is that wealth as a whole has been growing much faster than income. So if you look at the ratio of total household wealth to GDP in the US in 1980, it was around 200–250%, and today we are past 500%. This means that the total wealth of the country is equivalent to more than five years of annual production, five years of annual GDP. The second reason is that wealth itself has become much more concentrated, and the rise of wealth inequality, especially at the top of the distribution—at the very top—has been massive and has been even faster and stronger than the rise of income inequality.So we all know about the rise of the top one percent; the top one percent’s share of total income has increased from about ten percent of income in the US in 1980 to about 20% today. But at the top of the wealth distribution, the increase has been even much more dramatic than that.Krugman: At the risk of derailing it slightly, one thing that I myself have gone back and forth on—and certainly I get from comments on things I write—is a question comparing the wealth of the top 0.001%, or whatever: should we be comparing it to total wealth or to total income? And I know you’ve used wealth to GDP, and I have some thoughts, but you’ve done it both ways. Which do you use, and why would you use it? I don’t know which is right, but what are your thoughts?Zucman: I think both statistics are interesting and capture different aspects of reality. So if you’re interested in wealth inequality, in the concentration of wealth, the most meaningful statistic is to divide the wealth of the super-rich by total wealth in the economy. So, for instance, if you look at billionaires—roughly the top 0.1 percent of the population—they own about seven percent of total US wealth today. In 1980, they used to own about one percent of total US wealth. So it gives you a sense of the rise in wealth concentration. If you look at the super-top, you know, the oligarchs, the twenty wealthiest families—a very, very small fraction of the population—their total wealth is 2.0 to 2.2% of total household wealth in the economy. So I think that if you care about wealth inequality, these are the relevant numbers.Now, it’s also interesting to compute another statistic, which is the wealth of those top groups, and in particular the oligarchs, relative to total income or total output in the economy, because it gives you a sense of their influence on the economy and also because it gives you a sense of how much revenue there is at stake from taxing their wealth. So let me illustrate. If you get back to the 20 wealthiest people in the country, they have about 2 to 2.2% of total US wealth, and that’s equivalent to about 12–13% of total US GDP.Okay, so now you’re dividing a stock—their wealth—by a flow. And what it means is that if they spend their wealth—of course, they’re not going to do that in a given year, but imagine that they spent all their wealth in a given year—then they could buy 13% of all the goods and services produced in a given year in the US. So it really gives you a sense of just how big they are relative to the economy as a whole. And also it gives you a sense of what’s at stake with taxing billionaires. Because, of course, the way we think about tax revenue and about government budgets, is often in relation to GDP.And so here, what you have with billionaire wealth is that there’s a potential tax base; we are not taxing billionaire wealth today, which has been skyrocketing. That’s the flip side of the rise of wealth concentration. The positive aspect in all of that is that now there’s a lot of tax revenue at stake from potentially taxing the wealth of billionaires.Krugman: Yeah. I mean, my version is, I mean, most people have very little wealth, right? Wealth is highly concentrated, and what most people have is income. But the very top has wealth, and in some sense, the wealth-to-income ratio is telling you how many minions they can buy, how much influence they can buy in the economy and in politics. Is that kind of what you’re saying, or is there something else?Zucman: No, exactly. When I say that expressing their wealth relative to total income gives a sense of the influence they have, precisely it gives you a sense of how much they can spend on buying media companies, on funding electoral campaigns. Billionaires accounted for nineteen percent of total political spending during the 2024 federal election cycle.Krugman: Right.Zucman: They can fund think tanks and foundations, and influence the prevailing ideology like that. So it’s in that sense that it’s really useful, I think, to express their wealth relative to the value of the total income of people in the country.Krugman: So again, what’s your take on why total wealth has grown faster than income?Zucman: There are different stories, and I think the one that makes most sense to me and that seems most consistent with the data is that there’s been a number of policy changes since the 1980s that have favored wealth and capital, broadly speaking. So, for instance, you used to have rent controls for housing in many countries; when you lift rent controls, the value of housing wealth tends to go up. Many countries used to have pretty high corporate income tax rates, of almost fifty percent on average at the world level in the 1980s. Well, when the government takes half of the profits of companies, it capitalizes into stock prices; it reduces the market value of companies. But then when governments slash the corporate tax—and it has declined from about 45–50% to about 20–25% today at the global level—well, that again capitalizes into stock prices, and now it boosts the market value of companies, of equities.And you’ve had deregulation in many sectors that has boosted the profitability of corporations. You’ve had a significant change in the division of value added between labor and capital—the rise of the capital share, the decline in the labor share. That means more profits, more income for shareholders; again, it boosts the value of corporate equity. So all of these changes, they don’t happen like that out of nowhere. They are, of course, heavily influenced by policy.So, for instance, changes in factor shares—labor and capital shares—have been partly affected by the decline in union power. When unions are stronger, you tend to get a bigger labor share. When unions are weaker, you get a bigger capital share. Also in the way that we organize international economic relations, globalization. When we organize things without any kind of international tax coordination, or to put it differently, if we organize global economic integration by allowing total tax competition—no minimum taxes, no minimum tax rates—then capital owners can threaten to outsource production or to shift profits to low-tax places, and again, it reinforces the power of capital, hence the value of wealth.Krugman: Okay, But going back maybe twenty-five, thirty years ago—and again, I’ve been in the decrying-inequality business for a long time—we were saying, “You know, there’s a huge rise in income inequality, but it hasn’t really shown up in wealth.” And that really started to change. It’s not just that wealth has increased, but as you say, a huge increase in concentration in a few hands. So, what’s your story? I think I know what your story is about what drives this increasing concentration of wealth, but what is the mechanism? What’s it all about?Zucman: I think there have been different factors at play, so it’s not just a one-issue story. The thing that seems important to emphasize from my perspective is the dramatic changes that have happened with taxation, particularly in the US. Many people have forgotten, but the US used to have a sharply progressive tax system where capital was heavily taxed, where high incomes were heavily taxed, where large inheritances were heavily taxed. In fact, it probably used to have the most progressive tax system in the world between the 1930s, the New Deal, and the late 1970s. And then during the 1980s, it went all the way in the opposite direction.And perhaps what’s most striking is what has happened with the income tax. So when Reagan enters the White House in 1981, the top marginal income tax rate in the US is 70%. At the time, it’s the highest top marginal tax rate of all industrialized countries in the world. And then in 1986, you have the big tax reform, the Reagan tax reform, that slashes this top rate to 28%, which at the time was the lowest tax rate among industrialized countries. So it’s a really big change in just five years. And you’ve had that for the income tax, but also for the estate tax. The corporate tax rate used to be 50% after World War II; after the 2018 Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it’s been reduced to 21%.And so all of these really big changes, all going in the same direction, have had a massive effect on two things. So, first of all, on the incentives for very wealthy people to try to earn super high incomes. When the top marginal income tax rate was close to 100%—more than 90% in the 1940s and 1950s—there was just no incentive to try to earn a ton of money, because you knew that past some point, almost any extra dollar would go to the IRS. So why bother? Why try to bargain a super high compensation as a CEO? It was just pointless. Now when the top marginal income tax rate is 28%, it becomes really profitable to try to earn super high incomes, right? Because you get to keep most of the money for yourself. So there is this incentive effect.And there’s of course the pure mechanical effect, which is that with lower tax rates, you have more disposable income when you’re very rich, that you can save and use to grow your wealth. And that’s why I think those changes to taxation, which have been particularly powerful in the US, have played a very important role in the particularly fast rise of US inequality.Krugman: Now when you talk about incentives, if I were a right-winger, I’d say, “Well, the old system discouraged people from innovating, being job creators, and all that.” And I think that’s not what you mean, right?Zucman: Well, then it becomes an empirical question, right? In principle, it could be true. You could say, “Well, when people face those super high top marginal income tax rates, it discouraged people from innovating, from launching businesses.” But then you look at the data and you realize that in those decades after World War II, GDP growth was higher, in fact, than it’s been since the 1980s. Investment rates were no lower; in fact, they were higher. US capitalism, broadly speaking, seemed to work okay in that period of time. So of course you don’t know the counterfactual. You don’t know what would have happened if the tax rates had been much lower at the top in those decades. But what you can know as a fact is that these quasi-confiscatory rates on high incomes—and we’re talking about rates that apply to only super high incomes of several millions of today’s dollars—just didn’t kill innovation and growth and capitalism. And you have to think about who you are discouraging, what type of behavior you’re discouraging when you tax very high incomes at very high rates.Krugman: Right.Zucman: You could say, okay, perhaps it’s going to discourage innovation, but you know, are scientists or innovators really motivated by the extra income they’re going to be able to make above five million dollars in income? You know, perhaps, perhaps not. You’re also discouraging people who want just to capture rents, who want to create private universities that sell fake diplomas, for instance, or want to exploit patents and squeeze as much money as possible from consumers or patients or sick people, and so on.So there’s always in the economy people who are motivated by innovating, creating knowledge, and broadly speaking undertaking activities that are positive-sum for the economy as a whole. But there’s also people who are motivated by rent extraction, by different activities that are inherently zero-sum or even negative-sum. And suddenly, when you have 90% top marginal income tax rates, you’re discouraging this type of zero-sum rent extraction, which is the plausible reason why this policy was so effective, at least relatively effective, in the postwar decades.Krugman: The classic example from my angle has been that corporate CEOs have always basically set their own salaries. But in 1959, extracting a salary that was 500 times that of your average worker just made everybody mad at you, and you didn’t get to keep much of it anyway. And nowadays you do. So…It looks as if—and certainly from your work and those of us who pick up on it—we have had this process since the late seventies of this concentration, this oligarchy rising in our society, and that taxes have a lot to do with it. So the question is: what are the remedies? I know that we’ll get to wealth taxes in a minute, but we had a workable recipe, which was high corporate taxes, high estate taxes, high top marginal rates. Is there a reason why we can’t just reconstitute that regime, or why we shouldn’t—either as a possibility or desirability?Zucman: I think we could do it and it would make sense, but also, probably, it wouldn’t be enough. First of all, one of the outcomes of the first Gilded Age at the beginning of the twentieth century was the creation of the progressive income tax in 1913 and the progressive estate tax in 1916. So we instituted taxes to prevent or to curb the rise of concentration that was observed at the time and that many people were worried about.Krugman: Right.Zucman: It made a big difference, but also there was, and there’s always been, a kind of fundamental limitation, I think, with this historical experiment, which is that when you’re extremely wealthy—and think about billionaires—it’s, in fact, very easy to own a lot of wealth without having to report any or any significant amount of income. And so it’s, in fact, relatively easy to avoid the income tax. And we kind of knew about that from various anecdotes and case studies.For instance, a few years ago you had revelations by ProPublica on the taxes paid by US billionaires, and you saw people like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk in some years reporting very little income, paying very little income tax. There’s even one year when Bezos says, “Look, I’m so poor that I’m going to claim the child tax credit,” and he receives the child tax credit! So we kind of knew about these limitations of the income tax, but it’s only relatively recently that we’ve come to understand that this is a structural feature of income taxation in the US and globally—a structural feature that the super-rich have not yet entered into the system. The income tax is just not the right instrument to tax them.And so that’s why, in addition to the income tax, you need some kind of tax based on wealth. Because for the very rich, it’s easy to manipulate income to pretend they have no income. So, for instance, Bezos, as CEO of Amazon, didn’t pay himself a wage, he instructed Amazon not to distribute dividends, he didn’t sell shares, and so he didn’t realize capital gains, and so his taxable income was really low. There’s no tax evasion there; it’s all perfectly legal. But, of course, his ability to pay taxes as one of the world’s richest men is, of course, extremely high. And so that’s why, for people like him, the right tax is based not on income, but on wealth, which is much harder to manipulate than income. And that was partly one of the reasons for having an estate tax, which is a tax on wealth, but it’s not enough because the estate tax is just a one-time tax at the time of death. And so you can be in a situation where the wealthiest people in the country, year after year, pay no or almost no income tax. And it’s only when they die—when the estate tax was still functional—that we tried to make them pay a little bit of tax.That’s the limitation of the US experiment with progressive taxation, which is that it never really tried to make the ultra-wealthy pay personally on an annual basis. And I think that it is this limitation that we need to overcome in the 21st century. And basically, that has to involve some kind of annual taxation based on wealth.Krugman: Let’s talk about corporate taxes first. We used to collect a substantial amount of corporate taxes. There’s a lot of dispute about exactly who pays them, but your position, as I understand it, is that basically they fall on stockholders. Why did we retreat so much on corporate taxes, and could that be reconstituted or should it be?Zucman: So first of all, yes, you’re right that the corporate tax used to be a big source of tax revenue for the US. It peaked in the early 1950s at something like six to seven percent of US GDP in tax revenue, just from the corporate tax. That was with a nominal tax rate for the federal corporate tax that was slightly above 50 percent, but the effective rate was also 50 percent. It meant that out of any dollar of profit made, 50 cents went to the government.Krugman: Right.Zucman: And today we are down to about 1.5% or so of GDP in tax revenue—1.5 to 2%—from the corporate tax. So it’s a big decline. The standard story is that it’s going to reduce corporate investment, which is going to translate into a decline in the capital stock, and then workers are going to be less productive because capital is good, it complements labor, and so eventually it reduces wages, and so it’s bad for ordinary workers. That’s the standard story, which, frankly, doesn’t have a lot of empirical support for it. But why not? As an intellectual story, it makes some sense in principle.The other reason, which has been even more powerful in practice, is international tax competition. It’s the idea that we cannot tax corporations at higher rates because otherwise they move to other countries, and that there is this kind of law of nature: the race to the bottom with corporate taxation is something we just have to accept as a law of nature, like gravity. And that also is wrong, because, of course, it’s not a law of nature. It’s a choice that we make collectively to accept international tax competition, or to fight it and to curb it. So I think what this all means is that, of course, we could revert to higher corporate tax rates. That’s definitely something that the US, or in fact any country, can do.But what I want to say is that, also, it wouldn’t be enough, because the corporate tax is just a flat tax on corporate profits. So someone who owns just one share in Amazon, indirectly is going to pay the same tax rate through the corporate tax as Jeff Bezos, who owns ten percent of Amazon. It’s not progressive, and so that’s why it’s structurally limited.Krugman: Okay. In the abstract, if our concern is great wealth and we’re looking for some way to limit that and also raise some revenue—though I think in many ways the social and political implications are even more central than the revenue—the history shows remarkably little experience with wealth taxes, right? I mean, we don’t have a lot of evidence, and a lot of people say that they’re unworkable, citing what they claim to have been the history of France. So why don’t you talk to me about the history of wealth taxation?Zucman: Yeah, I mean, the US never had an annual progressive wealth tax, at least at the federal level. There’s, in fact, a pretty long history of wealth taxation at the state level in the 19th century, with so-called generalized property taxes that were taxes not just on real estate and land, but also on financial assets, typically at flat rates, so not rising with wealth. There’s a long tradition in the US that’s been largely forgotten.The more relevant history is the European experience with progressive wealth taxation. Many European countries used to have progressive wealth taxes. And I agree that the track record is not good. By and large, they were not big successes. But, of course, there are two ways to look at that experience. You can say, “Well, some countries tried wealth taxes, it didn’t work very well, hence it will never work.” End of story. Or you can try to study this experience and try to understand what were the problems and what lessons can be drawn, and whether the issues can be overcome.And this is what I’ve been doing with many others in my work, and the conclusion I’ve reached is that, yes, they had issues, these European wealth taxes, but the issues can be fixed.The biggest issue is that those wealth taxes didn’t even attempt to try to tax billionaires. Look at France, for instance. France is really a striking illustration. The French wealth tax was created in 1981 when a Socialist president comes into power and he has an absolute majority in parliament, and so he creates a wealth tax. But immediately he says, “Okay, we are going to exempt from the wealth tax people who own more than 25% of the shares of a company.” Okay? So if you’re a big shareholder in a company, no matter whether it’s listed on the stock market or not, if you own a ton of stock, that’s going to be removed from the base of the wealth tax. This will be tax-free. But, you know, the wealth of billionaires is precisely that: it’s owning a lot of shares in a company. So what France did in 1981 was like if the US today created a wealth tax and said, “We’re going to exempt Warren Buffett from the wealth tax, or we’re going to exempt Elon Musk from the wealth tax because they have so many shares in their businesses.”You know, it really makes little sense. And the consequence is that the effective wealth tax rate for French billionaires in 2016, on the eve of the abolition of the wealth tax, was just 0.005% of wealth. They didn’t pay it. And it’s not because they illegally hid assets. No, no, it’s because they were legally exempted from the wealth tax.Krugman: Why did Mitterrand do that? Do you know?Zucman: The way the story is often told is that some of the top billionaires complained and went to see him, and they said, “We’re going to move to Switzerland if you do that.” And so that’s how they got that exemption.But the deeper explanation, I think, is that there was no real commitment on the part of Mitterrand or the Socialist Party to having a tax on billionaire wealth, partly because they thought it would be impossible, that we had to accept international tax competition as a kind of given, that France would be powerless to do anything about that; partly because it was never a big priority for them. They bet on other policies to transform society that didn’t involve progressive taxation, but that involved things like the nationalization of some companies or labor market regulations. But progressive taxation was not part of their ideology, so to speak. They were not very committed to that.And also, I think in the 1980s, you could make the case that the government revenue at stake was just not very important. So it was not worth fighting for this. I think that was their view. And perhaps you could make that argument in the 1980s or 1990s, but today, it’s impossible. Look at what has happened to the curve—the wealth of billionaires has skyrocketed. So now it becomes really important to include them in the base. So that was the main problem: billionaires were legally exempt.The other big problem—and it’s related, of course, to the first one—is that those European countries never tried to do anything to fight the risk of out-migration by the super-rich. They just thought that, “Okay, we are powerless. If they want to leave, what can we do?” And that’s just not true. For instance, in the US, there is citizenship-based taxation, meaning if you are a US national, you have to pay taxes in the US no matter where you live. So you can move to Monaco or Switzerland if you want, but you still have to pay federal taxes.Krugman: Right.Zucman: France or Germany could have done that; they could have done a variation on that idea. But the big blind spot of the social democratic experiment in Western Europe has been, in my view, this inability to confront the forces of international competition, and international tax competition in particular.Krugman: So that’s it. Do you want to enlarge on that? Because I think that’s an interesting point.Zucman: Yeah, these social democratic governments never invested intellectually in trying to organize international economic relations and make those consistent with their ambitions for democratic transformation. Or, to put it differently, the social democratic project was always thought of as a purely domestic endeavor. And when they realized that there was competition from other countries—tax competition in particular—their reaction was not, “What can we do about that? How can we rewrite the rules of global commerce? How can we forge international agreements, or how can we design unilateral policies to protect ourselves from those forces?” Their reaction was not that. Their reaction was, “There’s international competition. We cannot do anything about that. We just have to adapt.” And so we have to embrace the race to the bottom with capital taxation.And that’s how, in fact, it’s socialist governments, or Labour governments in the UK, or the SPD in Germany, that have slashed the corporate tax rate. Scandinavia, too, moved from a comprehensive income tax where capital and labor are taxed the same, to so-called dual income tax systems where capital income is taxed at lower, flat rates than labor income. Always for the same reason: they never tried to think about how to make social democracy compatible with a globally integrated economy.Krugman: That makes sense. Although I think that the EU has a kind of minimum VAT rule, right? So the tax that falls on working people, you cannot make it too low, but the tax that falls on billionaires...Zucman: Yeah, that’s a very good point. The only form of tax harmonization that you have in the EU is on VAT. So when it comes to taxing consumers, the middle class, the poor, all of a sudden we can craft common rules. But when it comes to taxing companies or the rich, what can we do? You know, nothing.Krugman: So if Ireland goes and poaches corporations—although I think it’s mostly US corporations there, but anyway—Ireland can do that, but they can’t offer shoppers bargains. It’s pretty wild.Zucman: Yeah, exactly. That’s a very particular worldview, but that’s been central, in fact, in how European construction has proceeded so far. And I think if you want to rationalize this view, deep down there is the idea that it’s not just that international tax competition is a law of nature, but also that it’s a good thing, frankly. That it’s something we should embrace because those welfare states in Western Europe are too big and they need some kind of external outside pressure to force governments to be more efficient—to starve the beast a little bit. And I think many people, even left-of-center people at one point embraced this idea that we should welcome it—it’s going to make us more efficient. We should welcome international tax competition.And why not? You can make that case, but I think it has two problems. One is that it’s a pretty undemocratic way to decide things. It assumes that voters are going to structurally choose policies that overtax capital or the rich, and hence the need for constitutional constraints or external forces. And, of course, the other problem is that international tax competition, the way that it has unfolded, has fueled the rise of inequality, because the main winners from this are multinational companies and their owners, or people who derive most of their income from capital income, the wealthy, and so on.Krugman: Right. Sort of Reaganite ideas may have actually had a lot of impact even in Europe.Zucman: They did. Even though it was never formulated that explicitly, I think this ideology was very influential, in fact.Krugman: So you’ve been pushing for, in fact, some kind of global accord that basically makes it possible to do more wealth taxation. I’ve been re-reading your G20 paper on all of this. I don’t think this is anything likely to happen anytime soon, but what’s the state of the idea?Zucman: It will happen, but patience.Krugman: Yeah, patience. Well...Zucman: The beginning of all of this was in 2021: there was an agreement among 130 countries for having a minimum tax of 15% on the profits of big multinational companies. And, frankly, very few people had seen that coming, because the prevailing view was, “You know, it’s impossible to get an agreement like that. Small countries like Ireland benefit so much from international tax competition. It’s just utopian.” But it happened in 2021.And then, in 2024, Brazil had the presidency of the G20, and they wanted to put new ideas on the agenda, and they asked me what I thought. And what I told them is: “Look, I think we should do for billionaires what we’ve been able to do for multinational firms. So let’s try to have an agreement on a minimum annual amount of tax owed by billionaires.” They commissioned a report from me, and some progress was made at the G20, but then, of course, Trump was reelected, so nothing can happen at the moment at the G20 level.But what’s really interesting is what is happening at the national and, in fact, subnational level these days. Because right after the Brazilian G20 in 2024, the French National Assembly adopted the minimum tax on billionaire wealth that I had proposed. So it’s a tax of 2% on the wealth of people with more than 100 million dollars or euros in net wealth. And it’s a minimum tax, which means that if you already pay an income tax the equivalent of two percent of your wealth or more, you have nothing more to pay. But if you pay less than that, you have to pay the difference to reach the two percent minimum. So it’s the fairest and the most targeted tax that you can imagine, because it’s just on the ultra-wealthy, but not only that, on those among the ultra-wealthy that avoid taxation today.So France voted for that; it was then blocked by the very conservative Senate. But there is the beginning of an international movement in that direction. You’ve had a bill crafted under French legislation that’s been introduced in Belgium, perhaps soon in the Netherlands, and in Spain. At the moment in the UK, they’re talking a lot about that with the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham.And then, of course, most important in my view, is what is happening in California with Prop 40, the California billionaire tax, which is going to be on the ballot in November. This would be a one-time tax of five percent on the wealth of California’s billionaires. Frankly, it’s very important for California, for funding healthcare, Medicaid in particular. But it’s even more important for the US and, in fact, for the world as a whole. Because if California passes the California billionaire tax in November, I think this will really be the beginning of the US and international movement to tax the wealth of the super-rich.Paul Krugman: Okay. And this is a one-time tax, and it’s retroactive, right? It’s based on your wealth last year.Zucman: Yeah, exactly. So it has several characteristics. It’s one-time and not annual. And it’s only for billionaires, not for you and me. It’s on billionaires, and it’s on those billionaires who were residents of California as of January 1st of 2026. So it’s too late to avoid the tax, meaning if you were living in California at the beginning of this year, you would still have to pay the tax. So in that sense, there’s a small retroactivity here. And these two characteristics combined—the fact that it’s one-time and based on being a resident as of January 1st of 2026—mean that it’s nearly impossible for any billionaire to avoid the tax by moving to another state. So it also means that if it passes, it’s bound to generate a lot of tax revenue.The arithmetic is quite simple. The billionaires of California have about two trillion dollars in wealth. So if you tax them at five percent, you get a hundred billion in tax revenue. Another kind of illustration of how big the billionaire wealth tax base has become, which I think is quite striking, is the following: if you look at all the income of Californian people as reported in their tax returns—you know, AGI, adjusted gross income for California as a whole—it is the same number as the wealth of California’s billionaires, 250 people. So, their wealth is 100% of California’s AGI. Meaning, if you have a five percent tax on the wealth of billionaires, it generates as much revenue as a five percent tax on the income of all people in California. So that’s just a very striking illustration of what we were discussing earlier, which is just how massive the wealth of the billionaires has become and hence its implications for public finance.Krugman: Yeah, one of the things in California is it does have high personal income and high personal wealth, but that’s a few hundred people. They really skew the numbers. And so, how’s it going? I mean, it’s a little bit disappointing to see all of the “don’t be evil” guys from Google and all of that scrambling to protect themselves from taxes. But how are you feeling about the proposition?Zucman: Well, I’m not surprised by that, right? They have good reasons to hate this, because this is the one tax that they would have to pay. You have to realize that they pay very little today. The billionaires in California pay in income tax the equivalent of just 0.2% of their wealth. So, you know, moving from 0.2% to 5%, even if it’s one-time, it’s a big difference for them, even though their wealth has increased like 200% over the last two years. So from that perspective, it’s a drop in the ocean.But I think the polling is good. It’s going to be a battle just because the billionaires are spending tens of millions, hundreds of millions already, to stoke fears and try to defeat the proposition on the ballot. But I think the logic, frankly, is so compelling, and also billionaires are not very popular at the moment in California, like everywhere else, so I think it has a good chance to pass.But what I want to say is that, first of all, it’s important for California because there’s a big shortfall of federal funding for healthcare as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And so California needs to find broadly a hundred billion in revenues to just preserve Medicaid. So that was the main reason for having this on the ballot in the first place. And so if it doesn’t pass, you’re going to see the number of uninsured people rise a lot in California. Under business as usual, it’s going to increase from six percent to ten percent. So that’s why it’s important.But more fundamentally, in my view, it’s important because it’s the one concrete measure that can begin to make a difference to oligarchic wealth and power.And don’t get me wrong, five percent one-time is not enough, but this is what’s going to pave the way, I think, for eventually some kind of federal wealth tax and federal annual wealth tax. And the reason why there’s good reason to view it like that is because this is what happened for the income tax at the beginning of the 20th century, which was first implemented by a number of states, like Wisconsin in 1911, before becoming federal policy in 1913. So that’s why it’s really important. And I can tell you that the whole world is watching California. I think people in France are like, “This is amazing! Go California, tax the billionaires!” And this is going to be a blueprint for what we’ll do in France, in the rest of Europe, and frankly, globally.Krugman: States as laboratories of anti-oligarchy. Let’s hope for the best. Thanks a lot, and onward with the project. Take care.Zucman: Thank you so much, Paul. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Oligarchy and the Media 22.07.2026 14min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptGood news. The second richest man in America might be prevented from taking over CNN. That's the good news. The bad news is, aside from thefact that he probably will manage to pull it off anyway, the bad news is that that would be only a small piece of the ongoing takeover of U.S. media by oligarchs. And in turn, the media takeover is just part of the extraordinary exercise of power by the extraordinarily wealthy small number of men who have been wreaking so much havoc with America as we know it. Hi, I'm Paul Krugman. Doing a video today, because I didn't feel like doing a usual chart-heavy, analytics-heavy post, but very much on a topic I have been writing about and will continue to write about, which is the rise of oligarchy in America. Now, I know some people balk at that. But we're not talking about some kind of hidden conspiracy. We're not talking about the Protocols of the Elders of PayPal. We are talking instead about stuff that's largely out in the open, though not fully understood, which is the way that an incredibly wealthy small group of men, mostly men, is able to commandeer a lot of the political life of a country that is still nominally a democracy. And that's a fundamental story for our time, maybe the fundamental story. How does that takeover work? Well, there is what I think of as the middle level, which is the place where it's most easily quantified, tends to get most of the attention, which is campaign finance. American campaigns are very money intensive and have become more money intensive because we've opened the floodgates with Citizens United. And a lot of that money comes from a very small number of incredibly wealthy people. According to the New York Times analysis, about 20% of all campaign contributions in 2024 came from 300 billionaires and their families. That's a pretty big impact. A country of more than 300 million people, and 300 billionaires are a fifth of campaign finance, and surely more strategic, more targeted than the average donor. So that's really a very, very large role just in that direct sense of who pays for campaigns. But that's not the only level. There is a lower level, lower in the sense of morally lower, I guess, which is just plain buying politicians, buying policies, paying for the policies you want with cash or crypto on the barrel. There has always been some of that in our system, but it was normally discreet, indirect, deniable, the revolving door. It was the case even more than 20 years ago that when the Bush administration pushed through a Medicare bill that was very favorable to pharmaceutical interests, that the then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who basically engineered and steered the bill through Congress, then promptly retired and became the chief lobbyist for the pharma lobby. So this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time. But now it's just blatant, out in the open, and the sums are massive. We just have literally billions of dollars thrown at the president and his family. No doubt large sums to other government officials, large sums to at least some members of Congress. So just plain buying the policies you want — and it’s not just that a large share of wealth is held by a small number of people, but that those are the people who are best positioned to really deploy their wealth to corrupt the system. There's also something, I guess you can call it a higher level, which is what military strategists call shaping the information space, which occurs at a couple of levels. One of them is the promotion of ideas and ideology that serve the interests of the very wealthy. You see that on many issues. You certainly see it very much on economic policy. If you ask, why do people still go out there saying that tax cuts pay for themselves and that tax cuts on the rich are an enormously powerful tool for stimulating economic growth? That's been tested to destruction, and it just ain't so. But it's a zombie idea. It keeps shambling along, eating people's brains, even though it should be dead. And the reason is, well, there's a lot of money in it. If you Google something I've written on, more often than not, when I do that, the top sponsored post at the top of the search page is an attack on me sponsored by some right-wing organization. And if you ask who supports those right-wing organizations, well, guess who. And it’s equally or worse the case in climate science. Scientific journals have been pretty good at not publishing climate disinformation. But when they do publish things that are somehow skeptical, or usually not outright denial, but attempting to sow discord about climate change, what percentage of those studies have received financial backing from fossil fuel interests? The answer is 100. It's all about the money. So this is, again, this is not new. Upton Sinclair: “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” So that has always been the case. But now we have something which is really, really important and is another level of this, which is the takeover of the media. So, okay. Ellison, or the Ellison family —because nominally this is Ellison's son in charge of Paramount — has already acquired CBS and has hired Bari Weiss to basically corrupt and destroy that network. If the deal for takeover of Warner proceeds, then CNN will get the same treatment. I'm finding CNN a very good news source, just braver at taking on what's really happening than my old employer, the New York Times, which is a great news organization and may be more necessary than ever, but tends to be cautious — and CNN is a little bit less cautious. But anyway, if he gets away with it, then CNN as we know it will almost disappear. It will almost turn into Fox News. Now, that won't be a profitable venture. There's already a Fox News, and so creating another one is not going to actually produce a lot of profits, if any, but that's not the objective. This is buying influence. Elon Musk, of course, took over the app formerly known as Twitter. Which was already becoming a more difficult place even before its takeover. I used to have, I guess, I think I had 4 million followers there. But it was impossible. I had to shut off comments because of the cesspool that Twitter had become. But now it is really by design. It is heavily tilted. That can be quantified. The algorithm really tilts it towards right-wing stuff, promotes really rabid racist views. And unfortunately, the network effects, the centrality that Twitter used to have, still keeps a lot of people on X, where they are influenced: people's views change. And also something that I don't know how to quantify, but it's very obvious if you follow and pay attention to people's positions, is that people who spend a lot of time on Twitter, elites who spend a lot of time on Twitter, start to think that the views they hear there are representative of where the country is — which they are not. But it does, in fact, tilt policy, tilt understanding to the right. The third richest man in America is Mark Zuckerberg, who made his billions from Facebook. Facebook is old-fashioned: I don't know anybody who uses Facebook. But I know that lots of people do. And it's still a very important information source and has, again, been tilted. On most of these media things, it's not as blatant as what Musk is doing at X. But it still has a big influence in changing the tone of the discussion and biasing the discussion towards positions that favor the interests of billionaires as well as favoring their prejudices if they happen to be, like Musk, authoritarian white supremacists. Okay. And the fourth richest man in America is Jeff Bezos, who purchased the WashingtonPost. I think he purchased the Post initially out of a belief that he was going to enhance his prestige. It certainly looked in his initial tenure as if this was actually more of a vanity purchase than a political purchase. But a billionaire is going to billionaire. And so he eventually shifted the Washington Post's editorial policy hard right, eviscerated the news division. There are still some brave, plucky reporters doing good reporting there, but it's a shadow of what it used to be. And of course, it's not at all the institution of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee, not anymore. So that's another challenge. What do you do about this? Obviously, one does what one can to try to limit this takeover of the information environment. And so we have the suit brought against the attempted purchase of Warner, hence CNN, by Paramount, hence Ellison. And that might succeed. You might think, well, if it's delayed, then what are the chances of actually ruling it out? Except that apparently there's a bit of a financial clock ticking for Ellison, who really has extended himself pretty far. So that's possibly going to block it, and that's good. It would have been great if someone had found a way to keep Musk from destroying Twitter. So you can look for solutions to immediate threats. But you're not going to hit all of these balls. And so the constant pressure towards a takeover of the news media, constant pressure towards a takeover of the general information environment by a handful of billionaires, is not going to go away. The constant threat or reality of corruption of the government by billionaires is not going to go away. Maybe once Trump is gone, it'll become less blatant, but it won't go away just because someone more discreet takes office. Even if we have an honest president, which in the current environment, I'm sorry, does mean a Democrat, but even if we have an honorable president, the corruption of the system will still be a continual threat because of all the money flowing around. So in the end, the only way out of this, the only reasonably durable solution is to not have so much wealth at the top. If you don't like what's happening to our institutions, if you don't like what's happening to the media, if you don't like the corruption of government, if you don't like the overwhelming of campaigns by big money with nefarious ends, the only lasting solution is to reduce the amount of wealth at the top. Woodrow Wilson: “If there are men big enough to own the government, they're going to own the government.” If we're going to have that much money in the hands of a few hundred people, and in the case of the real top of it, just 15 or 20 people, then you're not going to be able to maintain a truly democratic system of government. Oligarchy is not the only thing wrong with America. It's not the root of all evil. But it's the root of a lot of evil. And until we bring that concentration of wealth at the top down, we're going to be fighting a constant rearguard action trying to save some of what America is supposed to be about. Have a nice day. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Lina Khan on AI and More 18.07.2026 37min

  Lina Khan, who chaired the Federal Trade Commission under Joe Biden, is one of the smartest and most influential thinkers about antitrust in our high-tech era, and one who has blazed new paths in policymaking. I spoke with her at a Graduate Center event back in March, and caught up with her again earlier this week for another enlightening conversation.For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.. . .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Lina Khan(recorded 7/14/26)Paul Krugman: This week, I managed to get to talk to Lina Khan, who was the incredibly influential and smart head of the FTC in the previous administration—with the current administration doing everything it can to undo her work. She played an important role in the Mamdani transition team and has had a lot of smart thoughts about technology and policy right now. And I thought we could talk for a bit about this, well, it’s always a bizarre moment these days, but this is the bizarre moment we’re in. And so, hi.Lina Khan: Hi, great to be here.Krugman: I want to get into technology and AI, but I wanted to just start with something that just happened. One of your special causes, which is “Click to Cancel,” which you tried to get as a national policy, just went through in New York City. Can you talk a little bit about what was achieved here and why?Khan: I’d be happy to. So, last week, the Mamdani administration announced that they are moving forward with two consumer protection initiatives. One was the finalization of a “Click to Cancel” rule, which basically says that businesses have to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.This rule is responding to the fact that we’ve seen a pretty significant pivot to service-based revenue, and more and more companies are relying on subscriptions as a regular business revenue line. And that has created an opportunity for firms to create a lot of friction when people are trying to unsubscribe. A lot of people can relate to situations where it’s very easy to sign up, or sometimes you’re enrolled without even your full knowledge or consent. But then once you try to cancel, companies can make you jump through all sorts of hoops. Maybe you signed up with one click online, but to cancel you have to phone somebody, except the hours are really restricted or there’s nobody there to pick up the phone. In some instances, you may actually have to go in person.When we were at the FTC, we got thousands upon thousands of complaints, and people shared how, even during the pandemic when they were looking to cancel their gym membership, some gyms required that they go in person even after they had left the state. So this has been a growing problem, and people lose real money from it. I mean, there are estimates that, in New York City alone, people could be collectively losing over $160 million a year. So this rule, which is going to go into effect in October, is an incredibly important step forward.The administration also announced that they’re going to be proposing a rule to tackle junk fees. These are the fees that oftentimes show up at the very end of a transaction, even though they were not reflected in the original advertised price. Sometimes they’re called convenience fees, service fees, or amenity fees. And these are non-discretionary; people have no choice but to see them included. Companies will, again, often not advertise them on the front end, which is both deceptive for consumers but also gives them an unfair competitive advantage, because honest businesses that are marketing the all-in price then lose business to those firms that instead do pricing where they market a lower price and then add all the additional fees at the end.So, I’m really thrilled that the Mamdani administration is moving forward on these two initiatives, especially because we have seen some very serious backsliding at the federal level, where consumer protection initiatives have either been abandoned entirely or powerful companies that have connections to the White House can basically pay their way out of legal accountability. And so it’s incredibly important to see cities and states fill in that gap.Krugman: I couldn’t actually quite figure this out, but there’s this other initiative from Mamdani: public interest technology. Are you involved with that?Khan: It is something we considered during the transition and wanted to set up the administration with the option. But, yeah, this is basically... they will be creating a team that is going to be laser-focused on improving service delivery—technological service delivery, digital service delivery—to New Yorkers. And so there are all sorts of online portals that people have to interact with that are not really optimized; really important city websites that are still optimized for desktop, and when people try to use them on their phones, they break down. And so there’s going to be a lean team of technologists designed to go in and make sure that across city services, people are having a good experience and that these things are easy to use and functional for people.I would say the effort has some analogs to what was done at the federal level with the U.S. Digital Service, which was a team in the White House of technologists back in the Obama era. When I was at the Federal Trade Commission, we similarly brought in a team of technologists, and we’ve seen that, especially as more and more commerce goes online, and more and more government services go online, it’s incredibly important to have technologists on board designed to make sure that these things are easy to use and well-functioning.Krugman: I’ve seen a couple of areas where essentially governmental functions are initially done by trying to buy off-the-shelf technologies or bring in Microsoft or whatever. And I know of at least a couple of examples where it was a huge improvement just getting their own people because they kind of knew what people actually needed. So, I don’t know if you’re thinking along those lines or where it goes.Khan: I think you’re right that it does get to this deeper issue of what does it mean for the government to have capabilities and to actually build those capabilities in-house. I think we’ve seen various eras where the government will largely rely on outsourcing, relying on various consulting firms. And there’s a first-order question as to whether the government is really getting a good return on investment there. I think we’ve all seen the news stories about New York City having paid millions of dollars to McKinsey to produce a report saying, effectively, “Put your garbage in garbage cans.”But beyond that, I think over-reliance on outside consulting firms can also deprive the state of building in-house state capacity, which can be incredibly important for the long term. And so, again, I think the administration, through bringing some of these functions in-house, is also going to be investing in those long-term capabilities within government.Krugman: Yeah. I’ll give you, just quickly, my own example. There are bigger ones, but everybody doing sort of macroeconomics now is utterly reliant on this thing called FRED, the Federal Reserve Economic Data, from the St. Louis Fed, of all places. And the thing is, they did not outsource. They just asked some of their own people, who actually knew what working economists needed, to produce a website that is really optimized for people like me, and that’s just incredibly helpful. I assume that there are many, many examples where that could be done.Khan: Yeah. I mean, the other risk that you create if you are entirely dependent on some external actor is that a single business decision can render some of those products useless or severely degrade the capability overnight, or it turns out that there’s a new subscription and so there are all these additional costs. And so, either diversifying those inputs or creating more in-house capability is important insurance around some of that private power.Krugman: Okay. And New York City would certainly be among the world’s 20 largest economies so this is not a small issue.But these days, everyone is talking about AI all the time, in terms of the economics and a lot of political stuff. You were doing a lot of work on AI at the FTC, and you have written quite a lot since. I wanted to pick your brain a bit, but why don’t you tell me where we were going before the change in administrations on AI policy, and we can move forward from there.Khan: At the Federal Trade Commission, we were really focused on both the competition implications of artificial intelligence technologies, as well as some of the protection implications. On the competition front, we were really focused on, first of all, understanding: what is the stack? What is each layer of the AI supply chain of sorts? And how do we make sure we understand what each of the economic properties are across the board?And so you have the chips, you have these hyperscalers, you have cloud infrastructure, you have these models, and then you have various apps and services built on top of those models. And what we’ve seen in other markets, including Web 2.0 and in digital markets, is that it can be very easy for one of these layers to become monopolized because of certain network effects, and because of economic properties that lend those markets to tip quickly. If you allow monopolization without additional rules—such as common carriage or requiring equal access on equal terms—it can really result in other layers and other markets similarly becoming monopolized or otherwise becoming distorted, rather than principles of open and free and fair competition being really what’s allowing more of this economy to thrive and develop.And so we were really looking at the AI stuff through that lens, trying to understand: are we already seeing certain layers where there are bottlenecks or gatekeepers emerging, and could that undermine fair and free competition in other layers in ways that could deprive the public of the full promise and innovation of some of these technologies? And so we had various investigations underway based on what we were hearing from market participants. But at the end of the day, we wanted to, again, make sure that inasmuch as this is a technological inflection point, there could be a lot of opportunity. How do we make sure that the best ideas have the opportunity to win, rather than existing gatekeepers using their power to basically pick and choose winners and losers in a way that results in more self-interested outcomes for them at the expense of the public and for the market as a whole?At that point, we were hearing various concerns about Nvidia and various ways that they had become a core gatekeeper. We’ve heard concerns about the hyperscalers and ways in which firms that run cloud computing could be getting privileged access across the AI supply chain. And so those were some of the types of concerns that we were hearing at that time.Beyond that, we were looking at potential consumer protection abuses of these technologies, ranging from abuse of people’s personal data. For example, with more and more AI firms looking to train their models, they’ve become even more hungry for data, including people’s personal data. And so we were starting to see things like Google [Workspace] or other types of service providers sometimes changing the terms of service, saying that they could now use the content of, say, people’s inboxes or their Google Docs to now start training their models without attendant protections for people’s data. And people had not been setting up their inbox or writing emails in a way where they were anticipating that suddenly a company like Google could be using all of that for training data. And so we made it very clear that these types of after-the-fact changes in terms of service could, in some instances, be illegal.We were also focused on ferreting out how some of these AI tools could be turbocharging fraud and scams. And so we were already seeing at that time: an uptick in complaints around things like voice cloning fraud, the way that some of these AI tools can be used to mimic somebody’s voice. You call somebody’s grandparent, pretend their grandkid is in distress and needs thousands of dollars wired over immediately. We were seeing this as a growing vector of fraud that people were starting to lose a lot of money to. And so we wanted to make sure, at the very least, that these companies knew that the existing laws on the books, both from an antitrust and competition perspective as well as from a data privacy and consumer protection perspective, still applied.Sometimes in Washington, there can be a pattern where firms try to use new technological moments to argue that existing laws are invalid or out of date and don’t apply. And we wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding about that—that the existing legal tools in place absolutely applied.The other thing we heard on the competition side was this issue of “interlocking directorates.” We were seeing a lot of AI partnerships and a lot of investments, famously Microsoft and OpenAI, and a whole bunch of other ones between Google and Amazon. And there was a lot of murkiness around what were the actual terms of these partnerships and investments, and could some of these investments, in turn, give outsized control to some of the existing monopolists over competitively strategic decisions? And so that was another area where we were looking under the hood to try to understand what’s really going on here in terms of these financial relationships.Krugman: Going back into history, the trusts that originated “antitrust” as a term... that was kind of overlapping, interlocking control. It was basically when you had the same people overseeing many companies. I’m perhaps doing violence to the history here, but am I right?Khan: Yeah, that’s right. The trust referred to basically a form of corporate control where this trust vehicle would basically roll up various entities and have financial control over various enterprises.Krugman: Yeah. And the Standard Oil trust was the most famous, but by no means the only one. And did you have specifics about the kinds of laws that they wanted to put by the wayside? I mean, I’m sure, but just give it a little concreteness for us.Khan: Yeah. I mean, I think one of the legal issues that is still percolating is this question around copyright. A lot of these models have been trained on existing information that is online, but much of that information has copyright associated with it. And so we would also hear from a lot of authors, artists, graphic designers, and people who produce content for a living who said they woke up one day to find out that this model had been trained on their life’s work and was now suddenly spitting out content in some instances that was competing with them. And yet, it was trained on them. And then because some of these firms controlled how search results are listed, they were now losing business to the AI version of their work.And so there are some really serious, meaty legal issues embedded there around unfair competition and copyright. This is an instance where, in existing litigation, some of the AI companies are arguing for “fair use”—that they were basically able to scan and train on all of this information because it was effectively in the public commons. And so some of these issues are still being litigated.But it’s really important to think about what the long-term incentives will be for newsrooms, for example, to still invest in news production and investigations if they’re not able to actually recoup their investments because it’s then just being swallowed up by some AI model. And so there are some serious long-term questions here around whether we are structuring our markets and structuring compensation structures in ways that are still going to incentivize the production of news or information content that we, as a society, decide is valuable.Krugman: Yeah. One thing I’m hearing from people in the news business is that the rise of AI in search is sort of suppressing links. Instead of getting a link to the deep investigative report by The New York Times or Bloomberg or whatever, you get an AI summary of what was in it, and people never go to the links. That’s the kind of thing, I guess, we’re worried about in many domains.Khan: That’s exactly right. And this is something that we had been seeing with Google even before 2022 or 2023, where they were giving privileged search results to some of their own vertical products in reviews, maps, or other types of search and travel verticals. But this problem is now being turbocharged, precisely for the reason that you said, and some of the statistics that are coming from publishers around just what a dramatic drop-off there has been in terms of search traffic to some of these publishers’ websites is just staggering.And so we see: before, Google used to be a turnstile to the rest of the web, where Google was the starting point so you could get to other destinations. And now, especially with more of these AI tools summarizing what’s on other websites and keeping people just within Google’s ecosystem, it’s depriving all of these other publishers of the traffic and oxygen that they would need to continue being financially viable, even as those other publishers and producers are the ones that are creating the information and the content in the first place. And so I think these are going to be some serious challenges.Krugman: Yeah, this is something where people that I know fairly well are actually quite seriously scared that their financial models are being undermined at lightning speed. One thing you can say about AI is that whatever is happening, it happens really fast.Okay. The particular thing that got me wanting to do this interview was an Op-Ed that you published in The Times, I guess soon after leaving the FTC. That was February 2025. Although when I looked and saw that that was the date on it, I was shocked because, in my memory, it was so prescient that it had to have been written like late last year. But it was actually written at the beginning of last year. It was under the headline, “Stop Worshiping the American Tech Giants.” Can you summarize what you were saying there? Because it does seem incredibly relevant to where we are right now.Khan: So, this was a piece that I wrote looking at the history of innovation in Silicon Valley and noting that, historically, the most paradigm-breaking innovations have come from markets that have allowed for real competition and allowed for new ideas to come in, get funded, and then to be able to really break into the market and compete on the merits of whether businesses or consumers like their products and services, as opposed to markets where you have gatekeepers basically deciding who gets to enter and who doesn’t get to enter.And so I was noting in the piece that at this moment of growing investment in AI, we would do well to want to double down on that commitment to competition, rather than allowing the monopolies and incumbents of Web 2.0 to be the ones that get to decide who gets to come into this market and who gets to compete or not.One of the catalysts for my writing this piece was the emergence of DeepSeek. This was an AI firm that originated in China. And it really shocked Silicon Valley and Wall Street when its model was rolled out, because it mirrored or rivalled the sophistication of American models but was able to do that with much more efficiency. And it really, I think, was a wake-up call from where I sat as to what it would mean to allow the American giants to just control these markets and innovate on the trajectories that they were determining, rather than allow for real competition.And I think with the American AI giants, there’s this additional question around conflict of interest. Again, some of these very firms—the Microsofts, the Amazons, the Googles—have their own cloud computing businesses. And inasmuch as these AI models are heavily relying on cloud computing, I think there’s a question to be asked as to whether these firms are going to have the right incentives when it comes to wanting AI models to be efficient, if they are simultaneously making a lot of money from models that are not efficient. And so I think the DeepSeek revelation was something that brought that conflict of interest to bear.Krugman: I sometimes hate that everything gets formulated in terms of competition with China, but at least part of the issue now is the idea of “national champions”—and we get to that in a minute or two—but that they are arguably, at least, putting us behind in competition with China. And then again, a lot of that has come to a head recently. People started to say, “Oh my God, we’re spending too much on tokens,” and a fair bit of turning to Chinese models. And that’s a huge move. And that was why, when I look back and read your piece, the date just popped out at me. I can’t believe you wrote that 18 months ago.Khan: Yeah. I mean, I think you’re absolutely right. And there are some real historical parallels here when it comes to certain technological companies insisting that these markets are inevitably going to be monopolistic, and therefore the government should treat them as “national champions” and support their monopolization.The piece also mentions Boeing as a cautionary tale here. There was a merger in the late 1990s that the U.S. government approved, where we allowed Boeing to buy up their last U.S. rival, McDonnell Douglas. And that merger, and what followed, basically has led us down a path where you then had Boeing’s planes falling apart, and people have died. And I think it’s unfortunate to have to admit that the lack of competition there probably played a role in Boeing not having to invest as much. There were other factors in terms of the culture internally—moving away from one that focused as much on engineering to instead one focused more on a McKinsey-type culture based on consulting—but I think we’ve seen how a lack of competition in some cases has really major consequences.Krugman: Yeah. This is one of the things which I love about your analytical work: the interplay between the cutting edge and history. Because everything is new, but on the other hand, we’ve been here before. And I thought that the Boeing example, as how things would go wrong, was a little bit revelatory.I know that you have a bunch of other things on your plate, but to the extent you’re following AI—and you may be following it more closely than I would imagine—where are we in that process now? Has the U.S. AI sector managed to get sloppy with monopoly already? I mean, everything now seems to happen at ten times the historical pace.Khan: I think there are going to be some new openings for potentially having more competition. I think, even with some of the more open models, you’re seeing that they can themselves be an input into more competition. And historically, we’ve seen that with open source—there are a lot of committed people around it because they believe the philosophy, but open source as a business model can also be enormously lucrative because it can just really catalyze innovation. And so I think making sure that we still have a vector and markets that are going to be built around that openness is going to be incredibly important.I think this issue of conflicts of interest is one that we need to take seriously and think through. Does it make sense to have the vertical integration that we do? Vertical integration can have, no doubt, various types of benefits, and there are sectors where having markets vertically integrated in that way can make a lot of sense. In markets where you are going to have one layer or multiple layers—the bottleneck layers, new layers where you have a lot of consolidation—allowing market participants in those gatekeeper-monopolized layers to also have a presence in layers that actually should be competitive. There’s nothing about economic properties that require those layers to be monopolized. But that’s when I think you can see a real problem. Because then you allow the monopolies to export their control and their consolidated power up and down the supply chain, distorting competition and distorting the trajectory of innovation.And so I think that’s the kind of prism through which we really need to look at the AI stack, along with these questions of efficiency. And what are the underlying incentives here? Do we have the right incentives when it comes to wanting to promote more efficiency with these models?Krugman: Right. And getting back to your example, at least as I understand it, if you have big players, either directly or with substantial ownership stakes, who are also in the business of selling compute, essentially they have no incentive to help the models use less compute—even though that would mean less environmental damage—and also have an incentive to favor profits there that are inefficient. And possibly, given that we do have a global economy, losing ground to rivals. Am I garbling this, or is that kind of how it is?Khan: I think that’s right. I mean, the other thing is these AI technologies and advances are coming against the backdrop of markets that had already been monopolized, right? There are major litigations against Google, which has been found to be a monopolist three times over, and against Amazon and Apple. And these are companies, especially when it comes to Google and Apple, that already have very significant control over key portals and over key distribution points.So, the way that most people interact with some of these AI models is through technologies owned by some of the existing gatekeepers—be it Microsoft, Apple, or Google. And so with those firms in particular, and especially Google and Microsoft which have invested more in AI, that’s where we also see potential conflicts of interest. We’ve already seen Google’s share of some of these markets go up because they’ve made such an aggressive push to use their existing monopolies in areas like Chrome and Google Search to make sure that it’s their AI services that get a leg up.Krugman: Yeah. Just a quick sociological observation—this is striking. I remember in a way that hopefully you don’t, but the dot-com era: that was all the scrappy young guys in their garages, and this is all giant corporations—the already giant corporations, and guys who made their decabillions 10 or 15 years ago. In some ways, I almost sometimes feel like the AI investments are kind of a plutocrat midlife crisis playing out.Sorry, but last point on this: One concern I have about the view of national champions is that we end up with—and I think you expressed this as well—having national policy directed to protect these incumbents, these players, even when they don’t have the right stuff. And now with talk of the Trump administration taking a stake in things, how big is that in your view?Khan: Specifically the concern around state control?Krugman: Well, not so much state control as that maybe if the Chinese have a better model, we start saying, “Oh, no. National security. It can’t be used here.” Or if there’s a smaller player that has a better model, that somehow or other there will be federal contracts, federal rules written to favor the big players who help pay for ballrooms and stuff like that.Khan: It’s a huge concern. I mean, it’s no secret that the CEOs of some of these technology companies have made it a top business priority to curry favor with this White House. They were all sitting there on the stage at the inauguration. They all make regular pilgrimages to the White House, to various state dinners. And so I think there’s a very serious risk of capture—a very serious risk of regulatory decisions being made in ways that are not serving the public interest at large or serving competition at large, but instead are serving the narrow private interests of a very small number. And so I think those are very serious risks.We’ve seen some debates in the White House and some policies that are veering in this way or that way. It seems like initially the White House had a very hands-off approach when it came to AI, and then they’ve started to take more interest in some of these specific models and where and when they’re being released. But I think, from a competition perspective, there is a very real risk that we’re going to see the biggest, most powerful incumbents, through their access to the White House and politically powerful individuals, be able to get rules and regulations that are personally favoring them and personally advancing them at the expense of the broader market, in the sense of startups and newer firms that in some instances may have better ideas.I mean, this is an age-old debate: what are the underlying market conditions that best pay for innovation? Is it monopoly or is it competition? The famous Schumpeter-Arrow debate. And at the end of the day, it comes down to this question of what type of innovation you are trying to promote. The empirical evidence shows that monopolies can be good at innovating, but they are primarily good at innovating in ways that deliver incremental improvements on existing technologies. Historically, the breakthrough innovations and the paradigm-shifting innovations have come from outsiders and have come from a competitive market.And so I think that’s why it’s especially important, as we look down the inflection point of some of these AI technologies, that we’re not allowing extreme centralization of those systems, when it’s in fact openness and competition that have been such a key driver of American innovation and market growth.Krugman: Yeah, in your op-ed, you point out that, I guess, the fundamental, sort of conceptual breakthrough that made what we call AI possible all came from Google, which just did nothing with it. It wasn’t until people left that they brought it to other places, and it started to become what we now see all around us.Khan: That’s right. And sometimes if you talk to employees at some of these companies, they will note just the enormous amount of bureaucracy, an enormous amount of bloat and red tape that can start to hobble the ability of these bulking institutions to really deliver fast-moving innovations. And so that’s why you see that sometimes ideas that even came from within Google actually have to go outside to get the attention and space to really be able to deliver.Krugman: Yeah. One of the great myths of our time is that the private sector is being efficient and innovative and only government is bureaucratic and slow. But if you’ve ever worked for or know anybody who works at a large corporation, it just ain’t so.Okay, just an open-ended question: what competition issue are we not paying enough attention to right now? Just trying to think about all of that stuff going on. It’s so much AI-focused, but what else? What’s kind of nagging at you as you track what’s happening?Khan: Well, I think one question is the way that AI and continuing technological advances and sophistication will intersect with other markets that are already very consolidated. And so as we see more and more integration of some of these AI tools in areas like healthcare, for example, or in areas like retail, I think there is an opportunity for these technologies to move. On the one hand, they could make these markets more open; but on the other hand, they could actually result in even deeper consolidation.We’ve already seen a whole set of lawsuits noting how in areas like housing and agriculture, there is use of algorithms to facilitate price fixing and collusion. Because where you already have a lot of concentration, these tools can basically make it easier to collude, or make it easier to collude with more precision and sophistication. And so I think the intersection of AI and technology with the rest of the economy is going to be an area to keep watching.Krugman: All right. Brave new world and really kind of alarming. I wish you were still in the federal government. But you’re by no means out of public policy. So thanks for talking.Khan: Thanks for having me. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Forever War Gets Scary 15.07.2026 6min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptThe war with Iran has just reached a very scary phase, and I’m not talking about the bombs and the drones. Hi, Paul Krugman here, doing a brief podcast instead of a full post, because I actually spent the day with friends and doing other things, and this is a quicker alternative.If you’re following the news, you know that the sort-of ceasefire with Iran has been called off. Trump has reinstated the blockade. The Iranians are back to hitting things with their drones and missiles. The U.S. position has been wildly erratic. First, Trump said he was going to impose a 20% toll on all shipping, basically turning the Strait of Hormuz into a U.S. toll booth, which would have been wildly illegal and irresponsible, aside from being impossible. Now he says, no, he’s going to demand that countries invest in the United States, which is also actually wildly illegal. But in any case, it’s never going to happen.And yet, this is extremely scary. The reason to be afraid is not that I think the war is going to come to America. It’s not even that I think the United States is going to seriously try to occupy Iran. We don’t have the troops. We don’t have the missiles. Trump depleted a large share of our weaponry in the course of his failed war so far. So this is likely going to be punitive strikes, maybe some war crimes along the way, but that’s all.But what is really frightening here is that it does appear as if Trump has given up on trying to extract something that looks like victory. If we go back just a few days ago, it appeared that what was going to happen was that Trump was going to de facto pull out, give upon the project, take advantage of falling oil prices because the strait was sort of kind of open — and try to spin the story about this was truly, this was actually an American victory and the economy is great and look at the stock market. And, you know, just it was a little bit — more than a little bit —stupid and doomed. It was also kind of amazing because a serious attempt to end the conflict would have required facing up to reality, saying, OK, this war didn’t go well, but America remains great. Sorry about that.But that was apparently not something Trump emotionally could bring himself to do. He just cannot admit that this venture failed. He can never admit that anything failed. We’re going to be searching for the saboteurs of the reflecting pool for the remainder of his presidency.This is a change in strategy that is ominous because what is Trump’s plan for the midterm elections? Here the idea presumably was that there would be enough economic success and people would have sufficiently short memories that they would possibly give Trump credit for opening the Strait of Hormuz, but in any case have put the gas price shock and the whole disruption surrounding the war behind them. And be ready to start admitting that this is the golden age that Trump and company keep on claiming it is.Now that’s all off. Now it’s just we’re going to bomb Iran. No clear strategy there, but we’re not going to even pretend that things are okay. We’re going to blockade them, which actually has a little bit more leverage, but no hint that anything might be resolved in a way that would help Republican chances in the midterms. So what is going to happen?I don’t think it’s a coincidence that just as Trump essentially gives up, not gives up in the sense of abandoning his war, but gives up on trying to achieve anything he can even spin as a positive outcome, that we now have an announcement that this Thursday he’s going to have a primetime speech, which reports say is going to be about election fraud in 2020. Some reports hinting that he might try to declare the two Democratic senators from Georgia somehow illegitimate.Okay, that’s not going to actually work. And nobody’s going to be convinced by the claim that he actually won the 2020 election. But what is happening is that effectively he’s setting up the pretext, the groundwork for massive interference in the vote this November. That we’re basically seeing the stage set for some kind of attempt to block fair elections, maybe block elections entirely.I don’t know how this is going to play out. But we are really now at the point where it’s pretty clear that Trump and the people around him have given up on actually winning the election. They’ve decided instead that somecombination of propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and possibly massive illegality is their way forward.And don’t say they wouldn’t do that. That has been famous last words every step of the way. The proposition that there were some things that even Trump and company would not do has been the best way to be wrong about everything, every step of the Trump administration.So in a peculiar way, the fact that Trump is back to bombing Iran is really bad news, not because of the bombs. Yes, it’s terrible and all that, But not because I have any real fear that America is going to be at risk from a foreign power, but because I think it signals an enormous risk to us from our own president, our own government.Be afraid, be very afraid.And take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets 11.07.2026 54min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.With everything else going on, the ongoing demolition of financial regulation and supervision, which is raising the risks of financial crisis, isn’t getting much attention. So I spoke with Dennis Kelliher, president of Better Markets, an independent think tank that is trying to sound the alarm.Full disclosure: my nephew works at Better Markets. But I would have wanted to talk to Kelleher regardless.. . .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Dennis Kelleher(recorded 7/10/26)Paul Krugman: Hi everyone. It seems hard to believe now, but the great financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath are now in the distant past. I think, in fact, in November there will be some voters who weren’t born yet. But for some of us, it was a huge, defining event, and financial markets as a source of economic problems and instability hasn’t gone away. And I thought I would talk with Dennis Kelleher, who is the head of Better Markets, an independent think tank devoted to trying to make financial markets work better for the rest of us. And in the note, I’ll mention I do have a personal connection to Better Markets, but that’s not why I’m interviewing Mr. Kelleher. Dennis is a former Senate aide, and as you know, congressional staffers are one of the great sources of expertise in America. And we want to talk about financial markets, so hi.Dennis Kelleher: Hi. Thanks for having me, Paul. Good to see you.Krugman: Good to see you, too. I have a bunch of questions, but we can go wherever this goes. The first thing is, whenever I try to talk about financial market functioning, what comes up is that most financial assets are owned by a relatively small part of the population, even if you take 401(k)s into account. So why isn’t this just a fight among the investor class? Why should everyone care about this?Kelleher: Well, it’s a great question because there’s such a lack of information about financial markets, the financial system, and frankly, as you well know, the economy. You know, one of the great services that you and many of your colleagues have provided is basically translating what’s happening in the economy and financial markets to the average Main Street American, reader of the New York Times, and consumers of news. And the truth is that the financial markets and obviously the economy impact everybody, and you’re right.This November during the election, some of the people voting will not have actually had any awareness of the 2008 financial crash, which was the biggest crash in the United States since 1929, which caused the Great Depression. And even though they may not have been born at that time, the people who are voting in November are still living through the repercussions of the 2008 crash. We basically lost an entire generation of Americans, economically speaking, from that crash.It took ten years for the U-6, the broad unemployment rate, to return to pre-crash levels. It was 2017 before that happened. And indeed, the Fed did an interesting study, which people can quibble with the baseline, but they did a study in 2018 that showed at the end of 2016, 90% of Americans were poorer than they were in 2007 by 17 to 35 percent. So if you think about that, at the end of 2016, the best-off American in that ninety percent bucket was 17% poorer. Now you could say the baseline of 2007 was inflated, but by and large, 90% of Americans have been doing pretty poorly since the crash for a lot of reasons.And so in November, when those people go to vote, they might not know it but they are actually living through the continuing economic consequences, financial consequences, and actually political consequences. Because the rise of Trump and the dissatisfaction of voters, Americans, and actually voters in the UK and elsewhere—Martin Wolf from the Financial Times wrote a terrific book called The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. It shows how if countries don’t deliver for the broad population, then democracy erodes and people look for easy answers, authoritarians, and strongmen. And we end up with Brexit, we end up with Trump.And so you’re right. People don’t remember the crash, but the crash is incredibly important to everybody in America. And the circumstances that we find ourselves in today are unfortunately echoing many of the drivers of that crash.Now, I didn’t answer your question about the investor class, but when you look at investors, something like 87% of the value of the stock market is owned by the top 10%. On the other hand, there are today $27 trillion worth of assets in 401(k)s and IRAs, retirement accounts. It’s overwhelmingly skewed to the top, but not only. And importantly, one of the great projects that America really needs to undertake is to democratize finance so that financial assets and the ability to grow wealth is more broadly spread out. One of the big crippling problems we have today is that the bottom 50% of Americans, about 165 million Americans, only have 2.5% of the wealth of the country. It’s astonishing, right?And so a big part of what Better Markets does in economic and financial policy making is to try and rebalance what we see as a rigged economy that’s driven by a rigged and broken financial system. So our economy is producing very well for the top ten percent, and our financial system is structured to deliver those results. Now, part of that is wealth extraction, but a lot of it is just structural drivers put in place by policy makers in Washington that cater to the top ten percent. And that, unfortunately, Paul, as you know, is on a bipartisan basis.Krugman: We’re gonna get into that in a bit, but let me just ask a question. I’m gonna actually kind of veer off course, although this is something I wanted to get to. Top ten percent. So basically, ownership of stock is, roughly speaking, a top ten percent activity. When you talk about skewed, I mean, I have a sense that it is actually increasingly skewed towards a fraction of a fraction. Do you have anything I should take away about how the system is rigged or skewed within the stock-owning population?Kelleher: Well, I think the problem is that the higher up you go on the wealth scale, the greater your ability to accumulate even more wealth in a tax-free fashion, right? And then to pass it along to both use it today as if it was cash and income, not be taxed on it, use it, and then hand it off through inheritance without being taxed to heirs for multi-generational wealth concentration at the top. It’s bad for the economy and bad for democracy.I mean, you’ve talked to Ro Khanna and there’s all sorts of people with different ideas about what to do. We’ve got a wealth tax on the ballot in California. But in terms of the structural drivers, one of the problems we see at Better Markets is that Democrats don’t pay enough attention to the financial structural drivers of the economy. So here’s just a simple example that people are often surprised by.Community banks in the United States—there’s about a little over four thousand of them. You see them on every corner across America, particularly in “real America,” as opposed to where you and I live, Paul, which is by no means real America. But those banks lend out seventy-five cents on average of every dollar of deposit. The big Wall Street banks, they lend out somewhere less than fifty cents of every dollar of deposit. And that’s because it’s so much more profitable for them catering to the rich, mostly engaging in financial activities, trading, and capital markets activities.And so ask yourself, why is that? Well, that’s because the rules enacted by the banking regulators and Congress and other regulators allow the profit margins on the financialized trading side to be so much greater than on the lending side. I mean, truthfully, the rules that are created in Washington actually discriminate against lending to the real economy.And so you have community banks which don’t have capital markets activities. They’re bread-and-butter banks for the most part. It depends on how you define community banks; some people define them all the way up to Wall Street, but those are people in the propaganda industry. But these are banks that are actually driving the real economy. So for example, the community banks have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the total assets of the banking system, but they actually provide somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% of all loans to small businesses.Krugman: Right.Kelleher: Well, why are we not having rules that skew towards benefiting the real productive economy and away from the trading financialized activities which serve the very top one or two percent and not the rest? And actually, it not only doesn’t serve the rest of the country, it’s at the expense of the rest of the country. Better Markets put out a report showing that last year the growth in major Wall Street bank lending to what are called “non-banks” grew by 50%. Do you know what their lending to the real economy grew by? Zero. Zero. And so a lot of these activities are being pushed out into what are called non-banks because it’s more profitable. It’s more profitable because the rules make it more profitable. The rules are created in Washington by policymakers, regulators, and legislators who, unfortunately, too often are beholden to the wrong people. And so you end up with this cycle where the rules keep reinforcing the current structure that’s channeling activity and money to the top and away from Main Street.Krugman: So as I understood it, reading some of Better Markets’ reports, if you’re a big financial institution, lending to non-banks probably ends up being a roundabout route by which the money reaches lenders, but not through the original bank. They actually have kind of a regulatory advantage because it’s lower capital requirements. If I got that right?Kelleher: Well, it’s lower capital requirements, it’s lower requirements across the board. Capital is one of the core drivers, but it’s not the only one.Krugman: So if you put your money with Citigroup or another one of the big financial institutions, it’s not going to be lent out, or much of it will not be lent out to small business or households. It’ll be lent to others; it’ll kind of divert around and it’ll in effect be channeled into what you consider a worse way through which the money reaches the rest of the economy. Is that a fair summary?Kelleher: That’s a fair summary of part of it. Keep in mind a lot of this money is funding hedge funds doing big basis trades, basically swinging for the fences. I’m not saying there’s no value at any hedge fund to the real economy, but when you look at their activities, that’s not exactly what I would call beneficial lending to the real, productive economy. Private equity is basically a strip-and-rip business model. It gets their money from the banks. Almost everything goes back to the banks, and that’s because deposit money is the safest, soundest, and cheapest source of funding for economic activities.And so the banks have got the money, and what they decide is: where are they going to send it? Are they going to send it over here to lend to Main Street businesses where their profit margin is modest, or go over here to hedge funds, private equity, or other financialized activities—business development corporations, crypto, all sorts of things where the profit margin is large? They’re making rational economic decisions in their self-interest to profit maximize.The question is: why are the people in Washington structuring it that way so that their profit margins are like that? The current capital rules that we’re fighting about, Paul, are supposed to change that. And in fact, what they’re supposed to do is have, for example, the trading activities accurately reflect the risk associated with them. And if they accurately did that, the capital requirements for those activities would be much higher. Not only are the banking agencies with the Federal Reserve in the lead not doing that, but when they’re done with the proposed capital rules, capital at the biggest, most dangerous banks in the United States is going to be back to the levels roughly before what they were before the 2008 crash.I mean, think about that. It’s crazy, right? Here’s something that’s even crazier: a bunch of those big banks are going to have capital rules and capital levels that are roughly similar to community banks.Krugman: Which are low, because they’re in a very safe business, right?Kelleher: Yes. Well, right. The systemic risk to the economy of community banks, first of all as an absolute matter, is pretty low. But relative to the giants on Wall Street, they’re infinitesimal; they’re not even comparable. And we’ve got a Federal Reserve, particularly the Vice Chairman of Supervision and Regulation over there, that acts as if she’s the primary lobbyist for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase.She even hired three of Wall Street’s top lobbyist lawyers to be her senior advisors. I’m not making this up. One was a vice president at Goldman Sachs. One was one of Wall Street’s top lawyers at one of the top Wall Street law firms for 35 years. And the other one was a top executive at Wall Street’s biggest trade group in Washington. Those are her three top advisors.Krugman: Are you talking about Fed employees or outside consultants?Kelleher: No, they’re Fed employees. They’re on staff. We put out a press release about her hiring the three of them. I mean, this is not just the fox guarding the hen house; this is the fox in charge of all operations of the hen house. So the lawyer who was on Wall Street for 35 years, serving his clients for 35 years—all of the banks—is now the Director of Regulation and Supervision at the Federal Reserve of his former clients, and the right-hand top staffer for the Vice Chairman of Supervision and Regulation on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. And so anybody who is surprised that the Fed is now enacting or proposing rules incredibly favorable to the biggest banks on Wall Street...And it’s not just capital, Paul. I mean, one of the tradeoffs here is that banks get to have a somewhat unique role in the United States, right? They get to accumulate all these activities and take people’s deposits. Main Street American deposits are how these banks fund themselves, largely. And then we insure that money through the FDIC so people have confidence that they’ll get their money back. But the exchange is: we regulate them so that they don’t actually threaten the economy and financial system of the United States because they’re so big. So that means they’re supervised.People don’t know this, but every day, people who work for the Federal Reserve and are paid by the American people, go to work at the biggest banks, supervising them. They literally have an office there. They go in, look at the books and records, and talk to people all day long at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. That’s called supervision. It’s basically invisible but incredibly important. But the Fed is not only cutting back on capital and regulation like stress tests and other important safety features; they’re also gutting supervision. And so they’re basically unleashing the biggest banks in the United States from modest, sensible regulation and supervision that’s supposed to protect Main Street jobs, homes, and savings from high-risk, reckless, and inappropriate conduct by these gigantic banks. We saw in 2008 what happens when you don’t regulate them or supervise them. And we actually just saw it again in 2023.Krugman: Right. This is 2023 with the Silicon Valley Bank and all of that, right?Kelleher: 2023 there were four big bank failures. Three of the four biggest bank failures in the history of the United States happened in 2023. People don’t realize it.Krugman: Even I didn’t realize that, and I’m supposed to be on top of these things. And this is happening incredibly fast, right? Normally we think you forget the lessons of the last financial crisis basically once people age out of the business and nobody is around who really remembers it. But we were dealing with the aftermath of 2008 just fifteen or sixteen years ago. And you’re saying that basically we’re fully back to that kind of Wild West, no-supervision world, or maybe worse.Kelleher: Well, we’re getting there, and the direction is there. We’re not quite there yet, but the thrust of what’s happening now is broader, deeper, and more reckless than it was in the years leading up to the 2008 crash. I mean, if you think about it, it’s quite amazing. The so-called shadow banking system—non-bank financial institutions—today is bigger than it was in ‘08 and less regulated.Krugman: That’s what I was going to say. Yeah.Kelleher: And it was identified as one of the primary drivers of the ‘08 crash.Krugman: That’s right. I mean, I remember very vividly in the fall of 2008, the conventional wisdom, even in textbooks—including my own—said, “Well, we can”t have a 1931-style banking crisis because the banks are insured and regulated,” and then the week of Lehman’s failure was, “Sixty percent of the banking system is shadow banks.” And you’re saying that we’re back to that and more now.Kelleher: Yeah, I don’t remember the exact percentage, but yes. And what’s worse is they’re less regulated today than they were then in many material respects. And now a lot of people think, “Well, it’s hard to worry about big catastrophic events when there’s a lot going on every day.” But this is happening fast, and because there’s so much happening in the Trump chaos machine—where there’s not a scandal a day, it’s like almost an hour.You know, J.D. Vance, who I almost never agree with on anything, said in a speech recently at the Nixon Library that if the Nixon crimes happened today, it wouldn’t even last a full news cycle. And he’s probably right. And so a lot of this is not only happening fast, it’s happening invisibly because just a very small slice of what’s happening is getting into the media. Meanwhile, the industry termites are working day and night in the policy-making process in Washington, eating away at the foundations of the financial stability of the United States.Krugman: You’ve been talking a lot about the Federal Reserve, which is critical because it traditionally has been the more competent, less politicized piece. And you’re basically saying that now that piece of the Fed has effectively been captured. Is that a fair description?Kelleher: The Fed has unfortunately been largely captured. It’s being run by people who have an agenda that is not consistent with the best interest of the American people, frankly. I’m not talking about the monetary policy side—that’s a whole different discussion—but on the supervision and regulation side, they are not acting consistently with the best interest of Main Street Americans. Wall Street is winning day in and day out in the policy fights.Krugman: Right.Kelleher: There’s going to be news coming out, I think, over the next several weeks, maybe months, that will illustrate that pretty starkly. It’s really quite astonishing what has happened at the Fed. And don’t get me wrong—there are a lot of good, hardworking, dedicated public servants at the Fed who nobody will ever see or acknowledge, who have been fighting the good fight for many years. But the leadership at the Federal Reserve at this point—the Trump leadership—is doing to the Federal Reserve what’s being done everywhere.Now, we know we had two big Supreme Court cases recently which supposedly cabined off the Federal Reserve from direct political control by the President, unlike the other agencies, and that’s true, but it’s all relative, right? I mean, he now has direct political control of the SEC, CFTC, and everything from the NLRB to the FTC to the FCC—all the critically important regulatory agencies that have been in place since the New Deal, basically creating and enabling an economy to be profit-maximizing but still have adequate protections for the public. I mean, that’s the balance that we need to get.And actually, a former colleague of yours, David Leonhardt, wrote a great book—and I always have it on my desk because I recommend it to people. It’s called Ours Was the Shining Future. It’s a great history of how the United States, post-Great Depression, built the largest middle class in the history of the world, really compressed gross income inequality, and created wealth in places people didn’t think it would happen. And he talks about how things changed when Reagan came in and kind of where we are now. But that was because we had a regulatory state.Now, people can argue about what’s reasonable—how much is too much, how much is too little—but we struck a balance that enabled the SEC, the CFTC, the Federal Reserve, and other regulatory agencies, from labor to health to product safety. That balance took some of the craziness off the blind profit maximization built within the engine of the economy.Now, the Supreme Court basically said last week that doesn’t exist anymore. What exists going forward is that the President gets to control all those agencies, and all those agencies are now subject to both the political agenda and the whim of whoever the President is.Krugman: So, for listeners who may not know: SEC is the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is supposed to regulate stocks and corporate accounting and all of that. CFTC is the Commodities...Kelleher: Futures Trading Commission, regulating derivatives and commodities. It’s the least known but a very important agency. For example, commodities: the bread in your lunch pail, the cereal in your breakfast bowl, the gas in your car, the heat in your home—all those markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.Krugman: Yeah. And so Humphrey’s Executor, the case where the Supreme Court essentially said that Congress cannot establish a mandate and then expect an agency to fulfill it if the President doesn’t want to. That really affects all of these agencies, right?Kelleher: Right. Actually, the case last week was Slaughter v. FTC, and that case overruled Humphrey’s Executor, which was a Supreme Court case from ninety years ago. I don’t remember exactly; it could be eighty. Contrary to what my kids often think, I haven’t been around that long.Krugman: It’s ninety years ago because it was actually a ruling against FDR. FDR was trying to change something, and the Supreme Court said, “Well, that’s not what Congress said and you, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, cannot change it.” But now it’s been waived for Donald Trump.Kelleher: Yeah, well, look. We have a right-wing Supreme Court—a supermajority—that is essentially creating, for the first time in American history, an all-powerful executive branch. As you know, it’s been referred to by legal scholars as the “unitary executive theory,” where essentially the President, whoever they are, gets to control the entire executive branch. And of course, over the last ninety years or so since the New Deal, we’ve had an administrative state that has, in key respects, put some brakes on the worst excesses of unrestrained profit-seeking. They’re just basic public protections.I think of it as being like cars, right? Cars today are very safe; they have airbags, bumpers that are shock absorbers, glass that shatters and doesn’t kill you, and reinforced doors. What the Supreme Court is doing with Slaughter v. FTC and these other cases that are empowering the President is literally taking the airbags and bumpers off your car. Except the car, in this case, is the country. It’s our democracy, our economy, and our financial system. The safety aspects of that system that protect our democracy, economy, and financial system protect people’s jobs and savings.And frankly, their safety—even things like the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the FDA. These acronyms can get confusing, but what they really are are safety mechanisms and protections for Main Street Americans from things that happen in a gigantic economy like the United States that would otherwise have really bad impacts on Main Street Americans, whether it’s their job, their health, their safety, or their savings—frankly, their families and their dreams. And that’s what these agencies do; some do it better than others, and I’m not saying they always get it right. They don’t; they get it wrong. We criticize them all the time. We criticize them when Democrats are in charge and we criticize them when Republicans are in charge. We also praise them when they do well. But we need them; we need these shock absorbers on an otherwise unrestrained economy that’s just profit-driven, and that’s what we’re seeing now.Krugman: We’ve ended up talking a lot about the Fed, which has a critical supervisory role, but Better Markets has been writing a lot about the SEC lately, and there’s stuff happening there that’s barely being noticed. I’m barely seeing anything about it in the newspapers, and yet that’s just as important, right? There’s a lot going on at the Securities and Exchange Commission.Kelleher: So, the Securities and Exchange Commission was created in 1933. There were two laws: 1933 and 1934. And by the way, I should say if anybody’s really interested in this—I hate to sound like a book reviewer—but there’s some great stuff. Diana Henriques wrote a terrific book last year called Taming the Street, which is a history of the SEC, how it came about, why it’s so important, and what happened during the Great Depression. It’s also a history of the American economy, a bit like David Leonhardt’s book. And it’s an easy read.But the SEC regulates investor protection in our markets. And you asked this earlier, Paul: why should anybody really care given that so many of these assets are owned by the top ten percent? Well, as you know, we basically have an economy funding pipeline—a capital pipeline, if you will—in our economy. People all over the country come up with ideas, some of which fail and some of which succeed. Those that succeed need capital to grow so that they can take it from their garage to a local store, to a factory, and to global markets.Krugman: Right.Kelleher: When they start, they end up using angel capital or friends and family. Ultimately they get a good idea and a venture capitalist. And then the big success used to be your company would go public on the stock exchange. That’s how companies generated enormous amounts of capital—which is just a fancy word for money. They got enough money to grow their business, build things, and hire a lot more people. It’s how we built the middle class.And that’s what the SEC regulates: the public part of that capital pipeline—the big public markets like the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. They regulate both the disclosure obligations and they police those markets. They do that because what happened in the 1920s contributed mightily to the 1929 crash and the Great Depression. It was basically people who were lying, cheating, and stealing with almost no regulation at all. The big banks were often multi-headed financial conglomerates doing self-dealing and conflicts of interest. Not only didn’t they disclose things, but when they did, they often lied and defrauded people. A lot of that ended up being basically what we would think of today as Ponzi schemes—nothing really there except the people running the firms enriching themselves.The SEC was created to make sure we had well-regulated and well-policed markets so investors wouldn’t get fleeced, providing capital for businesses to grow. And until very recently, the SEC was the global gold standard for investor protection. Well, that’s gone. The SEC under Trump has now moved from investor protection to management protection. It is as captured as, unfortunately, the Fed in many respects. It is cutting back on disclosures and investor rights.For example, they’re even interfering with proxy advisors. It’s very difficult if you’re an investor to keep track of the proxies at all the public companies. The big investors have to vote on director appointments or major policy questions, so they hire proxy advisors, just like you would hire an advisor for anything else. Well, the SEC is now interfering with people hiring advisors to give them advice on proxies. How can you say I can’t contract with somebody to give me independent advice? They’re interfering with that because it makes investors more dependent upon management.Krugman: Just explain to me how that works. How is the SEC blocking that? I’m just curious because that sounds important.Kelleher: It is important, and the details are on our website. But at a very high level, there are two big proxy advisor firms that have a large amount of the market. And what you would do is hire them to provide tailored advice. For example, if you were interested in companies that were socially active and cared about the climate, you could tell your proxy advisor you want advice related to that. If you were on the other side and you loved fossil fuels, you could tell them that and the proxy advisor will tailor it to you. You then pay them, right? What the SEC said in one of its proposed rules—I’m not kidding—is that the proxy advisor had to submit any comment about a company to the company’s management, and management had the right to comment on it. Well, it’s the exact opposite of independent advice. How that’s even constitutional is beyond me.The proxy advisory firms have been engaged in litigation I believe in Trump I and in Trump two, about the restrictions that they’re trying to put on independent proxy advice. It’s just one example. I actually put out a report called The SEC is Demolishing Investor Protection, Threatening Capital Formation and the US Economy, which detailed many of the actions they’re taking.But the problem we have is that this isn’t just an issue for rich investors; it impacts the entire economy. One of the reasons people all over the world send their money to the United States capital markets is because they are well-regulated and well-policed. They’re not going to do that if those protections are gone. There’s already been reporting about people thinking about putting their money elsewhere. Now, because the US stock market is doing so well, you could argue it’s still a safe bet. By and large, there’s no other place that can compete robustly with the United States at the moment. Leave aside whether it’s a bubble or not. As an investment vehicle, it’s one of the top global places to put your money.Well, that’s because—and this is what they don’t get, Paul—they are well-regulated and well-policed. You take that away, and you’re going to end up with crooked, rigged markets where you don’t know what happens to your money. And if that happens, that doesn’t just hurt the rich people who own most of the financial assets. That’s going to have impacts all the way down the capital formation pipeline to the real economy and people’s jobs.Krugman: Okay. I was completely unaware that the SEC was doing all of that. But I just want to move on a bit. Better Markets has been writing quite a lot about crypto. Crypto has suddenly faded from public attention because there’s so much else going on, like AI. But crypto is still a two trillion dollar asset class. Talk to me about crypto and where it fits into all of this.Kelleher: Well, to start with, we have been the tip of the spear fighting crypto since 2020. We were the leading opponents of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried back in ‘21 and ‘22 when he was trying to buy all of Washington and get his predatory model approved by the CFTC. In fact, we were so much of a thorn in their side that Sam called and came into the office for ninety minutes to try to convince me to support him. Unfortunately, there are so few people active at the CFTC, which is where he was trying to get his predatory model adopted.Krugman: This is Sam Bankman-Fried who came in to talk to you. Okay.Kelleher: Yeah, him and his bipartisan phalanx of advisors, because he bought everybody. For ninety minutes he tried to convince us. We didn’t know about his crimes obviously—but he clearly had an entire business model that was financially predatory. It was basically: “If we get rid of all these customer and investor protections, I can make a lot of money.” And I was like, “Well, anybody can make a lot of money.” You could make a lot of money building buildings if you don’t put in fire escapes or fire doors. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. That was essentially what Sam Bankman-Fried was trying to do in the derivatives markets, and we opposed him.He also thought he could bribe us; he offered us a million dollars or more. Frankly, I could have asked for twenty-five million bucks and I’m sure he would have delivered it in a paper bag. We said no. To my knowledge—and I don’t say this arrogantly, but in sadness—I think we were the only ones in Washington who didn’t take his money. He ended up in the right place.But Better Markets has been out front on this because there is no legitimate use case for crypto. They’ve had 18 years to come up with one. They keep throwing things up like “an inflation hedge” or “source of stability.” Every one of them has turned out to be baseless. The only real use for crypto is tax evasion, money laundering, and crime. It’s the preferred mechanism of choice for global terrorists, sex traffickers, and rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.You have to ask yourself why crypto has basically hijacked the political agenda of Washington. It’s because they followed the Sam Bankman-Fried model of buying bipartisan support by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigns. And this is the astonishing thing, Paul, that people don’t know.Krugman: Okay.Kelleher: It’s the biggest bait-and-switch in history. In the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on campaigns, they don’t mention crypto. That’s because they know crypto is toxic. Poll after poll shows crypto is toxic with the American people. Politico and the Wall Street Journal independently looked at the massive amounts of ads bought by the crypto industry supporting candidates in the United States, and not one mentioned crypto. Then they get their friends elected who come to Washington and say, “Crypto voters sent us here,” except not one voter voted based on crypto. They were mostly negative attack ads on extraneous issues.So crypto has now basically hijacked the agenda. The amount of attention politicians give it is crazy. The Senator from Maryland was recently quoted as saying, “I’m spending virtually all my time on crypto.” If his constituents knew that, they wouldn’t be happy. So here we have a financial product of no social use and massive negative uses that is being integrated with our core banking and financial system. Now, I’m sure it’s a coincidence, Paul, that the President is getting filthy rich on crypto.The problem is that the downside of crypto is not going to fall only on the people getting rich on it. Once they connect it up to the banking and financial system, which they’re doing across the board, we are going to see problems. In many ways, I think what’s happening now is worse than what happened before the ‘08 crash. Before the ‘08 crash, we had subprime. Well, we not only have financial craziness going on, we have this entirely new multi-trillion dollar financial product that has no value, is incredibly volatile, and is rife with conflicts of interest. It is going to be a core part of our banking system within the next twelve to thirty-six months.Krugman: Okay. This is a broader question of what happened to the political system. Massive campaign spending, but also a lot of effective bribery. You’ve been going after that. And it is kind of shockingly bipartisan. I mean, obviously, nobody has ever been “bribed.” The bribery of Donald Trump is, as he would say, “like nothing anybody’s ever seen before.” But it does extend across the political spectrum. You’ve been writing about that, right?Kelleher: Well, unfortunately, it has. Any ordinary person looking at what’s happening would think it was bribery. Unfortunately, it’s not technically bribery because the Supreme Court has made that almost impossible to prove in a political context. So we have politicians taking massive amounts of money from the crypto industry and then prioritizing their special interests over the American people. Poll after poll—and we have this on our website—shows that very few people in America use or own crypto. These are not our polls; these are from Pew and other non-industry sources. Even the FDIC and the Federal Reserve’s own surveys show this.If you look at the polls looking at what voters think, including one right before the 2024 election that looked at swing voters in six states, 68% of them had a negative view of crypto. That’s why crypto doesn’t mention crypto in its ads. But you have all this money coming into the political system, and now Democrats want that money too. Their view is: “Elections cost a lot of money. We need to neutralize this money cannon from crypto.”Therefore, they deliver for them so the industry doesn’t fire that money cannon against them—or better yet, gives them some of it. They do that directly through campaigns, independent expenditures, and Super PACs. They also do it through the revolving door where the industry hires former public officials, including Congressmen and Senators. They purchase them like you go to a vending machine. They give them a ton of money, and next thing you know, they’re mouthpieces for the crypto industry. They also hire lobbyists who are family members of very important people.There was a story that Senator Gillibrand’s twenty-two-year-old son has founded a company.That company is being funded by billionaires and other financial types because apparently he has a brilliant idea and they randomly found him in a phone book, Paul. Everybody is pretending it has nothing to do with the fact that his mother is a powerful Senator from New York who isthe leading cheerleader for crypto special interests. She also happens to be the chair of the DSCC—the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee—which raises the money to elect Senate Democrats.You can just read the media reports. You have to ask yourself: how are all these billionaires putting money into this startup? The spokesperson said these people are “longtime friends” of the son. When you’re twenty-two years old, how do “longtime friends” really work? Where do you run into billionaires? I know if you’re a Princeton professor they’re all over the place, but where I come from, running into a billionaire just isn’t common. Getting them to give you money for a startup at twenty-two might be the American Dream, but it ain’t working the way it’s supposed to.Krugman: I’m not a Princeton professor anymore, and there are very few billionaires at the City University of New York. But okay, there’s so much here. Any quick thoughts about AI? It’s monopolizing attention, but where is the financial side of that?Kelleher: I think in some ways it is monopolizing attention too much, and in other ways it’s not getting enough attention in the right places. We think that we’ve got a huge problem here. AI is inevitable; the real issue is what the safety features will be. Cars were a great innovation, but they killed a lot of people until we got airbags and protective glass. There is a fight now between people who think AI should proceed unregulated and those who think it should have regulation. We think you need a balance.The American people are on to this. They know it’s going to impact them. For one, these gigantic data centers are sucking up electricity and driving up bills, straining the electrical grid to the point where the entire country could be subject to blackouts. But also, AI is going to have a very big impact on whether you get a loan or at what rate. It’s not just your energy bill; it’s your local bank. When everything becomes automated, how does a community bank keep up?Community banks provide loans to the auto dealer or the local grocery store. They are going to come under enormous pressure because they can’t keep up with the infrastructure spending they’ll need. We have some ideas on how to strengthen them because they are so vital to our economy—providing 40% of small business lending. You lose community banks, you lose small business.And then there’s the gigantic banks’ use of AI with infrastructure and spending. Community Banks are gonna need to make major investments if they’re gonna keep up. I mean, as I said earlier, forty percent of the lending to small business in the United States comes from community banks. You lose community banks, you lose small business, you lose community. So that’s just one way, but it’s all the way up the chain.Another issue is that the people writing the algorithms are importing their own bias. Who’s guarding against that? There’s the “fat finger” problem where traders make mistakes, but who is testing AI machines pre-deployment? Representative Ro Khanna from California has made this point before, as have others. Truthfully, whether you like him or not, or you agree or don’t agree, you should listen to him because he’s got lots of thought provoking ideas on topical issues people really need to think about, and this is one of them.It’s like thinking: “Let’s open a nuclear plant in our neighborhood.” Everybody would say you wouldn’t do that without checking a million things first. AI is the same, if not worse, because it’s less visible. Better Markets is putting out a “people-centered agenda” on how we should find the right balance so we can get the best of AI while avoiding the bad parts—many of which are unknown. We shouldn’t be putting AI on autopilot. And you know, just like we’re not letting cars on the road running on autopilot without thoroughly testing them and making sure they’re not going to kill everybody. We sure as heck shouldn’t be putting out AI on autopilot.Krugman: Okay. This altogether makes me justifiably much more nervous.Kelleher: Then, let me end on an up note. I thought your piece this morning on jury duty service was interesting. I’m optimistic because the vast majority of the American people are reasonable and community-minded. The problem we have is that there’s so much money flooding into the system, and that money represents the extremes. The extremes are buying the political system. We need to figure out how to get more Americans involved so the reasonable people can have civil conversations. I do think most Americans agree on striking a balance within a reasonable range. Our problem is a Supreme Court empowering billionaires, and we have a president that doesn’t care about laws, norms, customs, or rules.What we’re trying to do at Better Markets—we just did this with our SEC campaign—is engage people. We engaged retail investors, and to our shock, two hundred thousand of them commented on an SEC rule. That is a historic high. So there are people out there, and we need to identify them and get them engaged. If we do, then I believe the core of the American Dream can be reflected in our political system.Krugman:I think that’s an upbeat note on which to end. Thanks so much. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  An Encouraging Encounter With Real Americans 10.07.2026 7min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptToday i want to give you some encouraging news about the state of the heartland. Well, actually New Jersey, but you got a problem with that? But I did something kind of different yesterday — which has prevented me from producing a usual analytical Substack post — and it was actually a very uplifting experience.So hi, I’m Paul Krugman. What i did yesterday was participate in jury selection in Mercer County, New Jersey, where i am still a legal resident.That is something I’ve done before: back in 2020 I spent 16 weeks on a grand jury. It was done remotely, because it was the depths of Covid. It was a New Jersey grand jury, which is not high profile cases. It’s actually very ordinary cases in which the police want to bring someone to trial but 23 citizens must agree that they have provided sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. You don’t have to judge guilt or innocence but you have to judge that there is sufficient evidence to warrant bringing charges. It was enlightening. I got to see a lot of the negative side of life, obviously, but it was just it was a pretty good experience on the whole.So I was summoned again this year. I wouldn’t have been able to do it, but I had to participate in the selection in order to explain to the judge, if necessary, why I could not be available during the period of this grand jury — a bunch of already agreed to conferences and talks in Europe.So it wasn’t going to be something I could do, but I did the right thing and went through the whole procedure of listening to the explanation, being pronounced present, and waiting to see the judge and explain the issue. Now, as it turned out, I didn’t even have to do that. By the time they had reached the people who had said they could not do it, including me and 77 other people, they already had filled the jury. So it ended up that it was time-consuming, okay, not a terrible thing, but it was a procedure that had to be done. And I did my citizenly duty and was released well into the afternoon.But what was interesting about it was that those of us who had said we couldn’t do it — 78 people in a Zoom room — had a long wait while the judge did whatever she needed to do with the rest. And after a little while some people unmuted themselves and we started having a conversation. This was by definition kind of a random sample of people — of course people who have felony convictions are not part of this, people are not us citizens are not part of it, and to be fair it’s Mercer County which includes Princeton although it also includes Trenton. Still, it’s on average an affluent, highly educated county so this was not exactly typical America but it wasn’t exactly the elite either: This wasn’t a virtual room full of Princeton professors.So conversation started. Obviously people are not fools so it wasn’t about politics, it wasn’t about current events, it started with people saying “anybody want to recommend some books that I should read?” and then turned to TV shows and movies and then somehow or other we got involved in a discussion of AI and applications and learning. Because there were several school teachers.Not everyone spoke up — most people didn’t — but everyone was listening, it seemed fairly attentively. And it was a great conversation! People were reasonable, they were either well informed or were happy to say “I don’t know about this.” There was actually some discussion about “how should I where should I go for news now that everything is so polarized” — nobody talked politics but they did talk about the fact that news is kind of hard to parse these days.The book recommendations, the TV and movie recommendations to the extent that I know them were pretty good. And the whole tone was, wow, it was civilized. I felt a little bit as if I was in the middle of a Norman Rockwell painting.By the way, yes, people did recognize me and a couple said you know I read your Substack and I talked a little bit but I made a deliberate effort to step back and not play the celebrity there.And that was good, because I got to listen to other people who were really level-headed, interesting, pretty well informed about a bunch of stuff. Oh, and just to say that this was New Jersey, so it was a very diverse group of people — a random selection of people from New Jersey, which meant that it was multi-racial and multi-ethnic. The clerk had some trouble with pronouncing everybody’s name, which was okay — I mean everybody was very forgiving of that.So it was very much America as I see it — a country of lots of people who look very different, who sound different (except a fair number of people did have New Jersey accents.)And it was just a far more hopeful scene — at least I found it much more hopeful —about the state of the country. It turns out that ordinary Americans — this is, again ordinary Americans from Mercer County, New Jersey, but still — ordinary Americans are a lot nicer, more thoughtful, more willing to hold interesting discussions than you might think.And it does seem to me, given all the political news, there’s a lot of people out there, I would say primarily on the right, but not only on the right, who fundamentally hold ordinary Americans in contempt, who believe that you have to go with cheap slogans and that you can appeal to the baser instincts of everybody’s nature and that’s the way that you win.And obviously they do sometimes win. But it’s worth going out there a little bit.I mean I’m never going to be the kind of person who travels around and has conversations with the person in the street and reports back on what I’ve learned about the real America. But I actually did have, by accident, a pretty good selection of real Americans — because we’re all real Americans — and came out of it feeling just much lighter in mood. You know, this country is actually okay if we can just get past some of the people who are trying to take us down a dark path. We’re not bad people — we’re mostly good people. And there’s a lot there’s a lot of uplift out here if you’re willing to see it. For once if I say I’m ending on a happy note, I really am.Take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Pain in Spain is Mainly in Trump's Brain 08.07.2026 2min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptYesterday, Donald Trump ordered Scott Bessent, the Secretary of theTreasury, to cut off all trade with Spain. Bessent said “Yes, sir.” Trump also said that this is because the Spaniards had stolen his strawberries. Okay, I made up that second part, but he did in fact order Bessent to cut off all trade. This is not going to happen.Presidents have a lot of discretionary authority on tariffs and trade, more than they should, but you do not have the right as president to impose tariffs on a country just because you don’t like their defense spending or you think that they haven’t been nice enough to you.So this would not fly even in the Trump administration. Even with a supine congress and a permissive Supreme Court this is not going to happen. Also Spain is part of the European Union. So this is like Europe declaring “we’re cutting off all trade with Florida”: they can’t do that. And also, there’s a lot of U.S. business with Spain. In fact, Spain is one of those countries with which we run a trade surplus. So U.S. business would be howling.So this is all a non-event, this is is not something that is real. Except that the President of the United States did say this. It was completely crazy, and that’s the story that we should be taking from this. It’s not really at this point about economics. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about Trump Administration policies, let alone ideology. What we have is President Sundowner. I mean, this this is completely insane stuff. In any kind of normally functioning political system, in any kind of normally functioning party environment we would have a massive bipartisan call across the aisle, across almost everybody except for a handful of members of congress who are themselves crazy, to say okay this guy is non compos mentis. We cannot leave the fate of the United States or the world in the hands of somebody who is completely irrational, who is making demands and believing himself to have powers that he does not. And of course, instead, not only does everybody pretend that he’s still a rational human being, but the Republican Party, the Trump administration, is full-on engaged in trying to build a personality cult.What this says to me is that the problem is a lot bigger than Trump. Something is fundamentally wrong with America, and at this point you don’t have to go through complicated justifications. You can just say something is wrong with a country and a system that lets this guy remain in a position of power.Have a good day. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Pump and Dump and Trump 06.07.2026 8min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptDonald Trump has distinguished himself in many ways. One of them is that he is our first pump and dump president. Hi, Paul Krugman here. A podcast today rather than a full-on piece: I’m a little exhausted from number-crunching over the weekend. So I thought I’d talk briefly about the really extraordinary financial picture that we’re seeing under the current administration.Obviously no president has enriched himself from office the way that Trump has. That’s common knowledge. One of the things that is really amazing about it, however, is the way in which he enriched himself — a lot of which has to do with crypto.So the New York Times had a report just the other day on Trumpcoin, the memecoin issued on Trump’s behalf which got a lot of buyers, a lot of money came flowing into it. It should have been obvious from the beginning that the coin was inherently worthless, and at this point it essentially is worthless. It has lost 97 percent of its value. But a lot of people did buy in at the high prices.What was special about the New York Times story was two things. First, they put a number on how much money naive investors have lost on the coin, which is 3.8 billion dollars. And even more surprising is the number of people who were in effect suckers here — almost a million.That’s really amazing. I mean, I was completely cynical but I didn’t think there were that many suckers out there. But it turns out there were really a lot. A few people made money off the coin — basically insiders who got to buy it early and then were able to cash in before the broader retail market realized that this was a worthless token. There’s another token, the World Liberty Financial coin — which has also crashed, although the Times had difficulty in tracking down how many people have lost how much money. There’s the Melania coin. Okay, all of this is amazing. As Trump would say, it’s like nothing anybody’s ever seen before. I think we should say, however, that this is a bigger story than just the Trump coin, and it’s a bigger story than just Trump himself.What we’re witnessing is or has been a really enormous pump and dump scheme, I would argue, involving more or less all of crypto. So if you don’t know the background, Trump used to be highly critical of cryptocurrency, saying it was worthless and a scam, which was true. But then when it became clear that there was money in it for him, he reversed course. And during the 2024 election, crypto interests contributed a lot of money to Trump. They then after the election poured a lot of money into his own enrichment, into his own projects. And the administration came in with a very pro crypto stance: deregulation encouraging uses of crypto, at least talk about a national bitcoin reserve, all of that. And the price of bitcoin doubled after the election; the valuation, the market cap of cryptocurrency in general went from a little over two trillion to more than four trillion.And then starting last fall it all came crashing down. Not all the way to zero — the price of Bitcoin right now as I record this is about what it was on the eve of the 2024 election; it’s about half what it was at its peak. That’s also true, roughly speaking for the market cap. So we’ve seen about two trillion dollars of market valuation wiped out.Why is this a pump and dump story? Well what is cryptocurrency good for? As you know, I’ve been on this for a long time. Bitcoin was introduced in 2009 — this is a seventeen year old idea which has yet to find any legitimate use cases. Illegitimate use cases, yes. There was also a report in the Wall Street Journal about the extent to which Iran and North Korea have been making use of cryptocurrency to evade U.S. sanctions, so there is that. But it’s still not enough to justify a multi-trillion dollar asset.Anyway, it was trendy, it was exciting, it was fashionable and particularly after November 2024 it was pushed with the encouragement of the Trump Administration. It was just a heavy marketing campaign that had the advantage of also having the authority or whatever, the credibility — such as it was but among some people real —of Donald Trump behind it. They all evaporated.I think we can say that to some extent what happened was that Trump kind of moved on to other things. There also is some distracted boyfriend meme: the guy looking over his shoulder. A lot of the excitable, fear of missing out, latest thing money has probably moved from crypto to AI. So that might have happened even without Trump. But the basic story is that Trump guided, pushed people into a whole asset class, crypto, of which a large part is Bitcoin, but other stuff as well. We don’t know how much, or I don’t know, how much crypto was bought during this period, but it has to be substantial. And then it crashed. And at this point, essentially anybody who bought crypto during this era, since the 2024 election, has lost money.It’s a lot of money; we know that on paper — it’s not really paper, but anyway — in principle two trillion dollars has been lost in crypto. Now a lot of that is probably money just given back, imaginary gains that took place during the run-up. But a substantial amount of additional money was from people who did buy in during this whole episode. So this has to be many times the size of the losses on the Trump coin. And it is, I would say, at a functional level another pump and dump scheme.In this case the beneficiaries were people who were already in crypto. Clearly some of the crypto interests that bought themselves a president probably stayed fully invested. But others must have cashed out, and a lot of innocents — well a lot of a lot of suckers, let’s not mince words here — a lot of suckers clearly lost a lot of money.It’s an extraordinary thing. There have been pump and dump schemes forever, probably going back to the Phoenicians or something. But this is on a scale we’ve never seen, and with the president of the United States in the center of it. Which I guess given everything else comes as no surprise.Happy 250th birthday, America. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Lisa Graves on the Supreme Court 30.06.2026 36min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.Lisa Graves is the author of Without Precedent, a history and analysis of the Roberts Court and the expert on how the Federalist Society has been working to undermine democracy. Yesterday this happened:So I managed to arrange a conversation with Lisa about what is happening:. . .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Lisa Graves(recorded 6/29/26)Paul Krugman: Hi everyone. This is a bit of an emergency recording and podcast because today, which is Monday as we’re recording this, the Supreme Court has just handed down several decisions, of which one was really alarming. And I had talked earlier with Lisa Graves, head of True North Research, and Court Accountability who had been warning about all this stuff when I talked with her previously and on other occasions. And I wanted to get somebody who’s actually following this to weigh in. So, hi Lisa.Lisa Graves: Paul, thank you so much for inviting me back on. I really appreciate it.Krugman: Yeah. So, there were obviously several decisions that came down, but Humphrey’s Executor… This is absolutely mind-boggling. So why don’t you talk about Humphrey’s Executor and then we’ll talk about the background and what this says about the Roberts Court?Graves: Yes. Today’s Slaughter case involving the FTC, is a case where the Roberts Court has overruled nearly a century of legal precedent which prohibited presidents from firing commissioners, specifically on the Federal Trade Commission, the case that you mentioned, Paul. Humphrey’s Executor was specifically about the FTC. It was about this provision that barred FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from firing someone whom Hoover appointed to that commission. When Congress created the FTC, it set a standard that required that you would have to have cause to fire someone outside of their term.The way the FTC is set up is that it has five commissioners by statute. Three of those commissioners are appointed by the president, two from the president’s party, and two are not from the president’s party. What’s happened over the past year is since Donald Trump became president again, he fired the Democratic commissioners on that commission. And so for the last 15 months, that commission has had only two commissioners, two Republican appointees, which has meant there hasn’t been a Democrat even in the room to consider these cases that are brought to the FTC, which relate to the power of huge corporations to merge with one another or not. And so, in essence, the FTC investigates proposed mergers and other things that might be considered a restraint on trade or affect the ability of consumers to get a fair price on things, for example. And what Trump has done is that he’s basically dominated that board in defiance of the plain language of the statute.So any legal action by Donald Trump that has been countenanced by this Supreme Court, which allowed that firing to stand, in essence, did not allow the lower courts to reinstall Rebecca Slaughter to that post while the case was pending, and then just today ruled that, in fact, under their new approach to the Constitution, Donald Trump has the power to fire anyone at any independent agency—other than the Fed, it seems—no matter what Congress has said. And this is the result of an invention of a theory from the Reagan revolutionaries back in the day to try to aggrandize presidential power through what they describe as “the unitary executive theory.”So the bottom line is that this ruling by the Roberts Court will allow more of the corruption that we’ve seen going on by this administration in terms of people who may be donors to Trump seemingly getting out of investigations or having their mergers go through, and we will not have a commission at the FTC that has any independence—just loyalists for Donald Trump for the foreseeable future.Krugman: And it applies obviously not just to the FTC but to any agency except not the Federal Reserve. But the FDA—if there’s an FDA official who is viewed as being too hostile to RFK Jr’s vaccine doctrine or something, then Trump can fire him. And the Supreme Court has said, “Well, yes, the president has that power. Congress cannot set any ground rules that can’t be overruled by presidential edict.” Is that a correct interpretation?Graves: Well, that’s the broad strokes of it, but just to add a little bit of gloss to that, which is that Roberts has been pursuing this agenda for years now. And he accomplished part of it through a case called the Seila Law LLC case, where he allowed Trump to remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And the CFPB also had restrictions on whether that person could be fired without cause, and Roberts already moved the ball forward on that. And that has had a cascading effect along with the terrible, unprecedented immunity decision, where the Roberts Court gave Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for any of his so-called official acts, which included directing agencies like the Justice Department to do his bidding.And so, up until now, what was left was this notion that if Congress created a board that specifically had limits on how a person could be removed from that board because of its regulatory function to implement congressional will to act in a legislative way, boards like the Federal Trade Commission or the National Labor Relations Board could not be swept of their members. But before this decision, through the machinations of John Roberts, in essence, Donald J. Trump was already exerting a power to fire anyone within the executive branch, whether they were on an independent board or not.Krugman: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau felt like it was a little bit different. It was basically Elizabeth Warren’s creation. It was a relatively new agency. But this now generalizes it to everything, and it goes back to the FTC, which is a very, very old institution and is where this whole Humphrey’s Executor comes from. So now that’s everything.Graves: Yes, except for the Fed. That is correct. And I think, as you were describing it at the outset, Paul, this has enormous implications for the American people and American consumers, because, in essence, consolidating power in this way in a president is not required by the Constitution. Although Roberts is somehow claiming it is, it’s not. This is part of this invention of this so-called “structural Constitution” under this very rigid notion of separation of powers, which basically guts some of the core powers of Congress and vests those powers, in the views of this court, in the hands of the president and the president alone.And this ignores the reality of what’s happening, which is that you have a president who’s not actually executing the laws passed by Congress; who’s thwarting those laws. When you look at Article One and Article Two of the Constitution, what you see is that the president’s primary job is “to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” And what’s happening here is that the president is circumventing those laws, thwarting those laws, and doing so in ways that raise serious questions of corruption or potential corruption or undue influence.And the area of trade and mergers is one of the most, you know, potentially profitable areas for people trying to curry favor with Donald Trump. And what we’ve seen over the past fifteen months is that the FTC under the control of two Trump loyalists has dismissed more than thirty-three investigations into mergers that were begun before Donald Trump took over.Krugman: This is basically a Federalist Society thing, and when they began pushing this, they probably had in mind that we would be pursuing an ideological agenda, that this would be something that would allow a right wing president to essentially just overrule Congress when it was doing things that weren’t sufficiently right-wing, or weren’t sufficiently “Reaganesque,” since this goes way back to the 1980s. But now it’s very much personalist. We’re talking about this as what one guy gets to do, which might not even be ideological. As you say, it might just be corruption.Graves: Yeah. I think it’s both, right? So there is this throughline from the Federalist Society that helped get these judges on the court. These six members were all either active members or noted to be members of the Federalist Society. They were part of the pipeline to power that the Federalist Society was created to accomplish. Roberts and Alito and the three Trump appointees, they were all appointed in the aftermath of the “No More Souter” campaign by Federalist Society activists who said they didn’t want judges who were going to follow the precedent. They wanted people who were going to basically be ringers and change the law to reverse the progress of the 20th century.And this attack on what they call the administrative state is really an attack on expertise. It’s an attack on the ability of agencies to do the job Congress has entrusted them to do, which is to faithfully implement those laws in defense and in pursuit of the public interests of the American people. So you now have this convergence between a president who is so determined to take cash, in many ways, out of other people’s pockets, including the pockets of the taxpayers, in order to advance himself, to aggrandize himself. And this has come to a head at a time when the court has the majority. So this captured court has the majority it needs to accomplish its long-term ideological agenda.And what a lot of people don’t realize is that when you look at the Supreme Court, this nine-member court, and the six members in the Republican-appointed majority, five of those six members were executive branch attorneys. They were people who cut their teeth for years in advancing presidential power, in trying to expand presidential power. And they’ve acted, I think, with a real arrogance toward congressional power, hostility toward congressional power, and with a bias toward their own long-standing agenda as lawyers, as Republican lawyers in this cause. And they’re moving forward even at a time when we have a president at the helm who is abusing his power almost on a daily basis in terms of asserting extraordinary king-like powers to do almost anything he wants.Krugman: I would actually disagree with that. I don’t think it’s almost on a daily basis. I think it’s at least several times a day.Graves: It’s an hourly basis, right? Yes. I’ll take that correction.Krugman: But yeah. You say that these cases were not brought to try and stop corporations from doing stuff, but the ability to exercise the function of the FTC as a guardian of the public interest. But it’s also a negative power. You can imagine that a merger that the FTC would normally have blocked is allowed, but also one that it would normally have approved could be blocked if, you know, the corporation in question has not cut Jared Kushner in on the deal, basically.Graves: Well, right. You know, I looked into those instances where you can see the list of the various mergers that the FTC has stepped away from investigating. And one of the things I saw was that before Trump’s appointees took office, there was a Joe Biden appointee—her name is Lina Khan. She’d been a vocal critic of Google and Amazon’s market powers. And what happened in one of these cases was that the FTC terminated the examination of one of Google’s acquisitions.You had Google’s CEO at the inauguration last year, you had Google Alphabet giving like a million dollars to the inauguration committee. You have a tie-in on underwriting the Trump ballroom, and then you have an FTC that is not pursuing a further examination of that acquisition. Maybe it would have been approved with the full commission, maybe it wouldn’t have—we don’t know. But what we do know is that there are other ongoing investigations, perhaps around Facebook, for example. Maybe in their view or in someone’s view, Facebook hasn’t ponied up enough cash to get that dismissed. It creates this real environment of coercion and shakedowns, the perception that if you’re not playing ball with Trump, you’re going to be treated unfavorably. And in fact, he’s routinely threatened companies that he thinks aren’t sufficiently loyal to him.Krugman: Yeah, I mean, it’s so raw and out in the open now. And by the way, Lina Khan is impressive as hell. I had a dialogue with her at the Graduate Center a few months ago, and she’s now advising Mamdani in New York. It’s just worth saying that a lot of the players in this have been around for a while and keep on showing up in different venues.But the power to do favors is also the power to withhold favors. So this is, as you say, an enormous source of potential corruption. You also have to wonder, if you’re a business, do you even know what the ground rules are? That’s what I’m wondering about a lot now.Graves: Well, you know, I think that that is a really good question. And it reminds me of this historical episode from that robber baron era when Teddy Roosevelt was president and the big companies—Standard Oil, for example, the mega-millionaires who would be billionaires today—were exerting such power over Congress that the smaller companies, the median-sized and smaller companies, were being shut out of the ability to really influence legislation. And that resulted in the Tillman Act, which is still on the books, that bars direct corporate contributions to a candidate. They get around that through PAC donations that are allowed, or through giving now to these C4 nonprofit groups.But you know, since about 110 or 115 years ago, it has been banned for there to be direct corporate contributions because, at that time, other businesses who weren’t the super-bigs were feeling like they were getting the raw end of the deal. And so I think that’s probably repeating now, where there are smaller companies that can’t afford to make million-dollar donations to the inaugural committee or make tens of millions of dollars of secret donations to this ballroom boondoggle, who are going to be disadvantaged because they can’t potentially buy their way in to favorable treatment.Krugman: Yeah. I mean, even big corporations who happen, for whatever reason, to be not sort of buddies. You know, it definitely looks like this administration has it in for Anthropic. I’m sure that they’re not angels, but this is still pretty amazing that this is one of the best AI out there, but they are not friends with the president and so they’re…Graves: Right. And look what happened at TikTok. For quite a while there we were hearing all of these attacks on TikTok, concerns about security or security access through that app. And with the visit of one billionaire, Jeff Yass of Pennsylvania, who’s one of the fifteen richest billionaires in the world—who made part of his fortune on super-rapid trading, but another part of his fortune on an early investment in ByteDance, the owner of TikTok—with one visit to Mar-a-Lago by Jeff Yass, suddenly Donald Trump was singing a different tune about TikTok, and then ultimately intervened in a way that ended up giving some of his allies ownership in TikTok.And so you have this real... I would say the most generous thing I could say would be it’s unseemly. I mean, it’s outrageous, actually, to have a president engaging in sort of corporate manipulation in this way to reward his friends and punish his enemies, as we’ve seen with Trump going after law firms, Trump going after universities, Trump assailing different corporations whom he dislikes or whom he considers not to have donated to him or advanced him. This is extraordinary in American history. I think it’s unprecedented, actually. Even with the corruption that was unfolding during that robber baron era, I think we’ve never seen anything like this kind of grift and graft.And this corruption is inherently destabilizing to American society, to American business, to investments in the United States. If the U.S. becomes, as it is becoming, a society in which basically you have to engage in these sorts of legalized bribes—although I’m not sure how legal some of them may ultimately be—that changes the U.S. as a stable economic superpower.Regardless of what a particular policy preference may or may not be at a given time, this is an extraordinary devolution of Americans’ role in both the U.S. economy and our role in the world—to have a situation where companies and countries have to pay up to a president or cut a deal with the president’s son-in-law or Howard Lutnick on minerals or what have you, or where someone can make a call to the Pentagon to get a special contract approved for Donald Trump’s sons. As you said, this is not just corruption on a daily basis. Whether it’s legally actionable—some of them may be, some of them may not be—but on a moral level, it’s corrupt on an hourly basis.Krugman: Yeah, on average every hour now. So, you mentioned devaluing expertise. The role of experts in a lot of this stuff—I think part of the issue is whether there are sort of procedures for consulting experts on things that will now be by the chopping block. Is that right?Graves: Yeah, I mean, that is part of a broader trend. It transcends the Slaughter case. But what we’ve seen is a real war on expertise. Certainly part of that was through the DOGE efforts of Musk, but those efforts, those firings of so many people, so many experts across the board in all these agencies, that has really decimated, not just the baseline of our skilled workforce in the federal government, but also demoralized the people who remain. And that’s across the board. That’s in areas of vaccines, it’s in public health, it’s in climate science, it’s in earth science, it’s in trade. It’s in all areas where we’ve probably cumulatively lost I don’t know how many thousands of years of expertise that the people actually invested in through paying these civil servants who were hired on a non-political basis, who were hired for their expertise to serve the American public. Whether it’s through the National Institutes of Health, or the FDA, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we’ve lost an enormous amount of expertise.And we’ve also seen the ways in which this Roberts Court has not intervened to protect against those firings. You’ve had people who should never have been fired, and months and months later, some of them are reinstated. Meanwhile, they may have moved on to other jobs, they may not want to come back into the government. This loss of expertise is a disadvantage for we, the people of the United States, in terms of having people who are looking out for our interests based on years of work, as well as scientists who’ve been reliant at the universities on these grants and more.This also is a real disadvantage for our national security, because it’s not just in U.S. civil society that we’ve seen these firings. We’ve seen people fired from the Pentagon who were, leading lights, people who had records of impeccable service to our country. We’ve seen that happening in the national security arena, in the intelligence community, where people who have deep expertise have been fired. We’ve seen that at the Justice Department where people who had expertise in anti-corruption, in enforcing DOJ’s rules to make sure that prosecutions weren’t politicized. We’ve seen the FBI firing people for just the act of doing their job to protect and investigate those who committed violent acts against our Capital Police officers. So this war on expertise, this war on civil servants, is deep and wide, and it is going to take a lot to repair.Krugman: Yeah, my experience in dealing with higher-level civil servants has always been that we had far better people in those positions, in a sense, than we deserved. You had all of these people at Treasury or at agencies that I would deal with, who could have made two or three times as much money in the private sector, but they did what they did because they thought they were doing something meaningful. They felt that it was a better use of their lives. And now, even if you haven’t fired them, if you’re disrespecting them, we’re going to lose that.Graves: Yeah, I mean, I have a bias on this because I was a career hire for the Justice Department and ultimately became Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Policy Development, the Office of Legal Policy. And I was there with other attorneys who could have been making three, four, five, six times as much in the private sector, but we were honored to be able to serve the American people.And I felt, every time I walked into the Justice Department back then—this was in the Clinton administration with Ms. Reno as the attorney general—there was this engraving that said, “The place of justice is a hallowed place.” And I thought about it as a place where people set aside their partisan political views or their personal religion to do the work of the American people. And almost in every instance where I had the chance to work with someone across that agency and other agencies, I was so impressed with the devotion and intellect and wisdom of the people who had chosen public service as their career.Krugman: Yeah. I mean, this was the Clinton administration, but you know, I had my year in government in the Reagan administration at sub-political level. But you know, the kind of deputy assistant secretary and office director level were astonishingly good people. Once in a while, you would get to see one of them lay down the law to the political appointee above them and say, “No, that’s not how it works.”So, this is a long-term project, as you said—the unitary executive, the stripping away. Presumably, when John Roberts and his friends began this, they didn’t imagine that “the unitary executive” to whom they would give all this power would be—to use the technical term—a f**k-up like Donald Trump. I mean, I’m a little surprised that didn’t at least give them some pause here.Graves: Yeah, it’s interesting. You’d think that they could slow things down for a moment given how reckless and destructive Donald Trump is, but they haven’t, right? This is not necessarily something they’re compelled to do. So, for example, Humphrey’s Executor has been on the books since the 1930s. They could easily have just said, “We affirm the lower court in Slaughter’s case and we affirm Humphrey’s Executor as still good law,” and just been done with the case. She would have been back on the commission months and months ago, maybe last summer. For Lisa Cook, you know, they sort of held that for a moment, held out this notion that they were going to allow her to remain, that they weren’t going to intervene on the Fed, but everything else was fair game.This court is taking cases where it could easily just either affirm the ruling below or reverse it based on a citation of long-standing legal precedents, but it’s not. And what most people don’t know is that this Roberts Court is only hearing 60 to 70 cases a year. A couple of years back, the Supreme Court was hearing up to a hundred or more cases. In the 1980s, there were changes to the court’s jurisdiction to basically leave most of its jurisdiction discretionary. The court only has to take cases basically where there’s like a fight between Arizona and Colorado over the Colorado River—when there’s a fight between two states. Otherwise, every case they take is discretionary. They are choosing this docket.They’re choosing, in Donald Trump’s term, to take up cases on the shadow docket where they ruled for him almost all the time—more than 90% of the time—and on the main docket, the docket that we’re seeing the decisions coming from now. Those are all cases where the Roberts Court has decided to have an oral argument and issue a decision, even where the long-standing precedent is against Trump’s actions.And so I wish that they had some heartburn over it. They don’t seem to, though, because they could easily, in the Slaughter case, have said, “No, she has to go back on that commission under the long-standing precedent of Humphrey’s Executor.” And they chose not to do so. And they chose not to do so even as the Musk operation, the DOGE operation and more were decimating our agencies; as they were decimating—not the FTC in that particular sense because it was hitting all the agencies,—but they did so knowing who Trump is and knowing what he’s doing.Krugman: And now they have to know him even more, right? In some sense, we are all in the reflecting pool, and yet they are giving him unbridled power. Just amazing.Suppose that we actually do manage to have a genuine election in 2028 and the next president is a Democrat. What do you think this court does then?Graves: Well, if the court were principled, and I don’t think it is, then it would, in essence, allow a Democratic Senate to confirm only Democratic appointees to those agencies and let them revise the rules and restore the statutory actions, the regulations that were stripped away by Trump. The reason I’m reluctant to believe that they will allow this to happen is how this court behaved toward Joe Biden and toward Barack Obama.During the Biden administration, there was a very modest student debt relief proposal. It was, I think, about $10,000 for people who made just about the average income in the United States, and that was based on a law that allowed emergency debt relief. It was expressly allowed for emergency debt relief; we were in an emergency under COVID. People were losing their jobs or weren’t working as the economy was cascading, and that was the basis, the statutory basis, for Biden doing so.But this Roberts Court asserted that Biden couldn’t do that, that this was a so-called “major questions doctrine,” and things like that had to go through Congress—that a president couldn’t just implement this through a regulation. And yet Donald Trump has done something far broader and deeper than that small, modest debt relief on a daily, if not weekly basis, and the court has barely breathed the words “major questions doctrine.”And that so-called doctrine, which is really a theory, was invented to gut our power to mitigate climate change through the EPA. That was in a case that Charles Koch and his billionaire-funded groups brought—or basically aided—in the West Virginia v. EPA case, where the Roberts Court invented the notion that the EPA could not regulate carbon without specific congressional approval under the so-called major questions doctrine. And so, in that instance, what you had was again what I consider to be a modest effort to mitigate climate change by way of requiring utilities to invest more in solar and wind energy to help address the climate changes underway—not a radical cutting off of fossil fuels or anything, but just a transition.Krugman: Right.Graves: And that was blocked by the Roberts Court. So when it comes to a Democratic president, they seem very eager to block actions that are ameliorating or compromises. But when it comes to a Republican president, they seem very eager to do the opposite—to allow even some of the most radical actions to take hold and proceed while litigation goes forward, or even to authorize and give a blessing to those actions.But there’s hope. Should I say there’s hope? There is hope. Can I tell you why I think that?Krugman: Well, sure. What is the hope, actually? What does “Supreme Court Project 2029” look like? What do we do?Graves: Look, this is a situation where we have not just executive branch aggrandizement, but we have judicial supremacy happening. We have a Roberts Court that is deciding that it is the decider—basically being the kingmaker for Donald Trump—but also the decider on almost any issue that they want to take up and issue a decree on. And that is disempowering to the American people, to representative government, to our democracy.And so what we need to have is a really robust Congress. In my personal view, we need to elect people to Congress who are going to clean house, who are going to deal with this corruption in the near term, who are going to investigate this corruption and engage in oversight in ways that make it crystal clear to as many people as possible how this is not a tenable way to run a democracy, and then build on that to hopefully sweep into power real reformers in 2029. Like what happened with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, where you have a real surge in demand by the American people to clean things up and create policies that actually help the American people.If we can move forward despite the threats this president is making with the aid of this court in terms of intervening in this midterm election with the map drawing, if the will of the people can prevail as you see it in the polls, then we have a real chance not just at a rebuke of this corruption, but actually of creating new ways to protect our interests and having an even more vigorous federal government that can help serve our needs. But that’s going to also require court reform to be part of it, because this court will strike down the same thing if it’s passed again unless we reform this court.Krugman: Okay, but what does reform look like? Is it court packing? Is it something like that?Graves: I think it’s all of the above. I think we have to have a real conversation about how we contain this out-of-control court. It could be expanding the court; there’s no number set in the Constitution. Nine isn’t the magic number. The Republicans were willing to have eight as long as it served them, you know, when they were blocking Barack Obama’s nominee.I think we have to look at jurisdictional reform. Article III of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to set the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—it’s in plain language there.We certainly need ethics reform because the court has also been enveloped in a cloud of scandal over trips and kissing up to billionaires by Clarence Thomas and other members of that court.And we also need to have a real sense of our power in the 21st century, the American people’s power, to have a people’s Congress that actually represents our interests and not just the interests of the richest few. Because of this Roberts Court in the Citizens United ruling, because of the concentration of wealth as Ronald Reagan sought to take down the progressive taxation of billionaires, we now have these billionaires who have so much money they can invest millions, hundreds of millions, in elections without missing a beat.I did a calculation once, by the way, on Jeff Yass in terms of his spending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court race. His spending, which was in the millions, was the equivalent of an ordinary Pennsylvanian buying a coffee and a bagel once a week. And that’s not just because they’re lucky and they’ve got money to invest in risk; it’s because the tax rate is so out of whack and has to be fixed as well.Krugman: Okay, well, let’s hope for the best. But my god, that’s among the reasons not to celebrate the 250th anniversary as wholeheartedly as one might have liked. Thanks for talking to me, and especially on such short notice.Graves: Gosh. Well, I will just say, you know, there still is a lot to celebrate, and we can set the course of the next 250 years if we don’t give up and we don’t give in.Krugman: Okay. On that note, let’s press on with the fight we are in, as Lincoln would have said. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Court Sides With Dictatorship — and Chaos 29.06.2026 7min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.Note: It’s Lisa Cook, not Lisa Graves. Talking to Lisa Graves shortly.Earlier today, the Supreme Court declared war on U.S. democracy. It also declared war, basically, on modern society, on everything it takes to function in the 21st century. And I’m not sure that people understand that yet. Hi, Paul Krugman with a quick video update. I’ll have more on this tomorrow. Really shocking decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. There were a couple that were not awful. Lisa Cook gets to stay at the Federal Reserve, although that in itself is a huge contradiction to the important stuff that the court did. I mean, Lisa is important and the Fed is important, but much more important is Humphrey’s Executor, which is the generations-long precedent that says that when Congress creates an independent agency, it is independent. It’s able to make decisions. Of course, the president has some role. Typically, the president can choose the agency’s head subject to congressional approval, but the president can’t just go and fire officials that he doesn’t like for whatever reason or for no reason, because the agencies that operate the U.S. government and basically run our society are supposed to be professional. They’re supposed to be following their legal mandate. They’re not supposed to be personal tools of a dictator in the White House. Well, the court just scrapped that. Now, lawyers, people who are legal experts, can do a better job of explaining just what went down. But what I think is important to understand is not only does this give essentially dictatorial powers to the occupant of the White House, but it also makes it extremely difficult for the economy to function. It makes it extremely difficult for society to function. We live in a complicated world, a world of technology, where there are all kinds of spillovers, all kinds of ways in which it’s important that there be well-established ground rules. If you’re a business, take the example of medicines and foodstuffs, where we have an FDA, Federal Drug Administration, that is charged with ensuring that products that people consume are safe. We do that for very good reason. We know that not just that that there have been examples, historically, of products that were foods, medicines that were not at all safe, but also that people want some assurance.The fact that something has been FDA approved is a bit of a warranty, that it might turn out to be very harmful, but probably not. Businesses that want to invest in developing stuff need to know that there are some ground rules that determine what they can and cannot sell.Now imagine that all these decisions are made by political appointees who are loyalists to the president, who basically do whatever the president wants, whatever the people around the president want. Do you want to invest in something where you have absolutely no idea what the ground rules will be, whether it will be approved or not? Do you want to invest in a whole business line when, for all you know, the White House will abruptly decide that your product isn’t safe and that a competitor’s product is, based on spurious grounds? And what would cause those decisions to happen? Well, how about the fact that some businesses are better at the business of bribing the president and his family than others. And if you think that this is outlandish — you know, a few years ago you might have said this was outlandish, things like that wouldn’t really happen — well, as we speak, these things are happening all the time.So you are setting up a situation in which, you know, it’s a little bit like traffic laws. Traffic laws, yeah, they can be annoying, but aren’t we all kind of glad that there are in fact rules about when you can turn and when you can go through an intersection? In order to function, in order to drive your car around you need to have a set of stable traffic rules, not a situation in which a police officer can decide you broke the law and the other guy did not because I say what the law is. And especially not where the police officer does that based upon who’s been paying him off or who he expects to be paid off. The real world is far more complex than traffic rules but we need those rules and we need some stability and those rules cannot be specified with every letter, every punctuation mark set by Congress. The world is too complicated and changes too much. You need to have standing ethos, standing doctrine at the agencies that make modern life possible. Now all of that is gone. Now, it just adds to it that all of this is being done to empower a president who is the worst possible person for this job. This is not somebody you want supervising anything, everything that Trump touches turns to crud because he doesn’t care and he doesn’t actually understand or recognize that there’s such a thing as expertise as knowing what you’re doing. So this would be terrible even if we had a temporarily competent administration. But now you’re doing all of this, the Supreme Court is doing all of this to empower the guy who brought you the Reflecting Pool, who brought you the Iran war. Utter nightmare. Now, what will happen, hopefully, we emerge at the other end having fended off dictatorship. Then, I mean, as everybody knows, this Supreme Court is not actually empowering the presidency. It is empowering this president. And as soon as there’s a Democrat in the White House, suddenly there will be all kinds of restrictions on what that person can do. Well, this cannot go on. This is a clear argument that says we have to one way or another disempower the Supreme Court. I don’t know enough to tell you what is the best route to do that but court packing or something else is going to have to happen. Because this has been the clearest signal yet that we have six people (there are three who are not part of it, but we have six people) who are fundamentally hostile to democracy, fundamentally hostile to the modern world and determined to put the catastrophically bad leader that we currently have sitting in the White House in charge of everything, which is a nightmare scenario on every level. Take care, I guess. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Corruption for Make Benefit Glorious Family of Trump 28.06.2026 6min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptIt’s kind of hard to believe, but the original Borat movie was 20 years ago. It’s time for a second sequel. And I already have the title. It would be Corruption for Make Benefit Glorious Family of Trump. I hope that some of my listeners are young enough to not remember the original Borat movie. But it was a mockumentary, a satire, in which Sacha Baron Cohen pretended to be a journalist from Kazakhstan investigating and interviewing Americans about American mores. It was not about Kazakhstan, although he did insult the country along the way. The reason I think about it is that today’s New York Times has a piece that reports, investigative reporting, on an immense mining deal in Kazakhstan, which, what do you know, turns out to be a big profit center for the Trump sons and also the sons of Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary. Check out the investigative reporting for the details, but basically here’s another one, another big one.It’s part of an immense series of corrupt deals, often with petrostates — which Kazakhstan is — that financially benefit Donald Trump and his family and some of his cronies and cabinet members as well and their families. It’s all on a truly epic scale. This is a message I have been trying to get across. I don’t think many people even now understand just how much of a departure what’s happening now is from past US history. I still see people saying we might be, could be heading for another Gilded Age. But we have a level of concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people that is something like three times what it was at the peak of the Gilded Age. We’re in a super duper Gilded Age. And I sometimes hear people say, well, could we be returning to old kinds of corruption? Might we have another Teapot Dome scandal? Well, my God. Teapot Dome was a scandal actually involving mineral rights and bribes during the Harding administration, although not bribes to the president’s family, which is, again, something entirely new. The scale of the bribes was about $500,000: adjusting for inflation, that’s something like $9 million today.So how much has Trump enriched himself since returning to the White House about 500 days ago? The answer is certainly more than four billion dollars, almost certainly more than four and a half, maybe five billion dollars. Divide that by 500 and we basically have a Teapot Dome sized corruption scandal on an average day under Trump.So it’s basically day after day of scandals as big or bigger than Teapot Dome. Our corrupt grandfathers, great-grandfathers were pikers compared with this, just as the Gilded Age robber barons were pikers compared with the modern-day tech bros. This is obviously not good. It’s actually quite horrifying. How did we so quickly descend into becoming a truly massively corrupt country on a level that we used to think of as being associated only with tinpot dictators in the third world? And yet here we are. This ought to be a political issue and it ought to be a legal issue as soon as the government is back in the hands of people who actually take the rule of law seriously. Again, without going into the details of the deal, it’s surely illegal. I mean, it’s illegal under the Emoluments Clause. Probably since there are definitely Kazakhs on the take as well, it’s illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This is just, it’s illegal up the wazoo.Of course, it will not be prosecuted as long as Trump is in the White House. But forget any Democrat who isn’t promising to go after this massive corruption when they regain power. If they don’t, then none of this matters, but that should be a core part of anybody’s platform. I’m not a political expert — sometimes I think nobody is — but my God, again, this corruption is so blatant. And it does resonate with people. It’s really clear that corruption at the top and the sense that ordinary people are paying the price while people with power enrich themselves is an effective popular issue. That is actually the issue that brought Viktor Orban down in Hungary, which is one of the hopeful signs for what may happen to America going down the pike. So here we are, just to remind you that this scandal, it’s a huge thing. It’s page one in the New York Times, but in a way it’s actually kind of ordinary, since even this size of scandal is happening every few weeks these days.Do not make the mistake of treating what’s going on as in any sense normal. This is hugely abnormal, and I believe that the American people will understand that it’s abnormal even if pundits get bored of talking about the corruption. So drive it home, maybe for make benefit American people instead of the Trump family. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  On Holding Elon Musk Accountable 27.06.2026 10min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.TranscriptFor most of last year, Elon Musk was the second most powerful man in America. He was running a large part of the government’s budget. And during that time, he established a track record of evil incompetence. I mean, really evil and really incompetent on enormous scales. And why aren’t people talking about it more?Hi, I’m Paul Krugman, doing a brief follow-on to my discussion that was posted earlier today with Ro Khanna, the Congressman from Silicon Valley, who’s a very interesting guy in many ways. One of the things that has made him especially interesting in the last few days is that he said something entirely reasonable, which is that if Democrats retake Congress, they should hold investigations into the role of Elon Musk as head of DOGE, the sort of not exactly but effectively government agency, in destroying USAID, the agency that was the principal channel for aid to the most desperate, poorest people in the world. That’s entirely reasonable, and Khanna went on to say that there are credible estimates that the cancellation, the destruction of Doge has led to millions of unnecessary deaths, including millions of children — which is exactly true. There are studies that say that there is both in the field evidence of widespread death as a result of the cancellation and, of course reasonable health models. Because what do you think happens when you cut away tens of billions of dollars of aid to people who are living right on the edge? So of course it’s a reasonable thing to say. Musk, of course, responded not by saying, no, it’s not true or something like that. He did say that not a single person has died because of those cuts, which is utterly implausible. But he also went on to say that he was going to sue Khanna, though he hasn’t actually so far, and that Khanna should be in prison for saying — not even saying that Musk killed people, but that there are studies that say that he killed people. It’s quite evil and so much for free speech. Musk is very much like Trump, somebody who can dish it out but can’t take it, can’t even handle the kind of criticism that any public figure should expect to receive. Honestly, you shouldn’t be at all in the public domain unless you’re prepared to deal with a lot of insults and accusations. When you have the kind of role that Musk did that would come with the package even if he had done a decent or non-catastrophic job. But of course he didn’t. And so let’s talk first about the evil.It’s not just that Musk more or less personally set out to destroy this aid agency set out to cut off healthcare, nutritional assistance, just basic necessities of life for millions and millions of extremely desperate people. But he did so callously, carelessly, he even actually tweeted out, oh, “I just fed USAID to the wood chipper and I could have gone to some great parties instead.” What can you say? This is an extraordinarily evil act. It came in the context of somebody who made enormous promises about what he was going to do. People have kind of forgotten that Musk came into DOGE promising to find trillions of dollars in waste, which he would eliminate, none of which happened. Overall, it’s pretty clear that DOGE actually worsened the budget deficit at least a little bit. He also made specific claims along the way, most notably his claim that there were something like 20 million dead people receiving Social Security benefits. That was because the 19-year-olds that he put in positions of great influence, the Muskrats, whatever you want to call them, didn’t understand government databases. You know, you get parachuted into an agency with access to the computer system but absolutely no knowledge of what the agency does or how it does it and then couple that with a kind of arrogance — believing that these people must all be stupid and I can just sit down for a day or two with their data and find vast waste and fraud. Well, nobody in a position of responsibility should believe that kind of thing.It’s possible that Big Balls and his other hench people actually believed that they knew what they were doing. But my god, if you’re put in charge of a hugely important government function, you don’t assume that everybody there is an idiot and that your neophyte attaches have somehow stumbled on things that nobody else noticed. And of course, Social Security is so pervasive, such a large part of everybody’s life, that the idea that there could be tens of millions of dead beneficiaries and nobody has noticed it, that’s completely crazy. You even wonder, did Musk really believe that? Does he even have a notion that some things are true and some things are not?But in any case, there you are. And so it was a total disaster. He left the government not, clearly not because Trump thought that he was too extreme, too bad a guy, but because it was so clear that he did not know what he was doing.And the reports of alleged savings from DOGE: it was starting to get embarrassing because it was so easy for news organizations to find out that the claims were utterly false, that none of what they claimed was happening was actually happening. So he left. and then he goes back to his companies and becomes at least temporarily a trillionaire with an enormous public offering. Why didn’t people think that his record with enormous public responsibility was somehow relevant to his financial future? I mean, if a guy who can convince himself that there are 20 million dead Social Security recipients, who can convince himself that you can massively slash foreign aid and it’s all waste and fraud and nobody will be hurt — why would you trust that person to run a company? And furthermore, the character flaws that are revealed here — flaws is what too weak a word, but anyway — when you have somebody who refuses to acknowledge uncomfortable reality, refuses to acknowledge error, who responds to any perfectly truthful statement that reflects badly on him by saying, I want that guy put in jail. — those are not the character traits that make for an effective manager. If you can’t accept that you are ever wrong, how are you ever going to get things right?Because things will go wrong, and you will make mistakes. We all do. So all of this seems terribly relevant, and yet it says something, I guess, about America that people piled in to SpaceX stock, although some of that has come off now. It really was clearly an early frenzy, a fear of missing out frenzy.There are now reports that SpaceX also sold bonds, which itself is a little troubling. Why should they be needing to go into debt right away? What is that about? And those bonds have already lost some of their value, which is much more serious than the stock coming down. When bonds lose value, that’s because people think that there is now a risk that this company might default, might not be able to honor its promises. So seeing those bonds start to trade at a discount almost immediately is a pretty bad sign for the company. But again, why did anybody believe any of this?Musk is a horrible, terrible person and has the blood of millions of children on his hands. Let’s be clear. Yes, it’s not something that has been proven, but it’s close to. It’s so overwhelmingly likely that it clearly has to be true. And he’s also a weak personality — very much like Trump again — he can’t take criticism, he can’t admit error. So what does it say ultimately about our society that so many people are willing to throw money at this guy and that they’re so willing to forgive the incredible failures that he carried out, the incredible disaster of his time in a position of public responsibility. And I don’t really know the answer to that. There’s a real question about how it is we got at our current age of irresponsible oligarchs and with so little public backlash. And it’s starting to develop. But still, the fact that Elon Musk is still in business, let alone the world’s richest man, is in some sense an indictment of all of us. On that happy note, take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Catching Up With Ro Khanna 27.06.2026 48min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.Ro Khanna represents a large part of Silicon Valley, and not surprisingly is a very smart guy. Perhaps more surprisingly, he’s also a very interesting progressive, who has drawn considerable ire from the tech lords, with Elon Musk most recently calling for his imprisonment. I caught up with him Friday:TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Congressman Ro Khanna(recorded 6/26/26)Paul Krugman: I’m talking again to Rep. Ro Khanna, the Representative for Cupertino, as it were, representing the heart of Silicon Valley in ways that don’t always please the tech oligarchs. I had planned to ask about AI, but there’s so much going on and Ro is right in the middle. So, welcome to this interview.Ro Khanna: Well, I’m honored to be back on. I usually just read you to learn, but I’m glad we’re going to get to have another conversation.Krugman: As it happens, tech-related politics is really central now. And you seem to be in the middle of at least three big issues: Elon Musk, AI generally, and the California Wealth Tax Initiative. I want to talk about all of those, but maybe let’s start with Elon Musk, who has called you evil, which is a great honor. Do you want to talk about that controversy and where you came in here? Because I think it’s very interesting.Khanna: Well, he’s called me evil, he’s threatened to sue me, and he’s threatened to jail me. I have this quaint idea, Paul, that in a democracy, Elon Musk should have one vote. He doesn’t seem to think that, and the reason he has been so triggered is that I not only cited a Lancet study—which said that his USAID cuts could potentially lead to the deaths of 4.5 million children and over 10 million adults—but I also cited an Atul Gawande/ Boston study showing that some of these deaths have already taken place. This triggered him, not just because I cited these studies, but because I said he’s going to have to come before the House Oversight Committee when we take back the majority; we’re going to have the power to subpoena him. And, of course, defying a congressional subpoena could lead to contempt of Congress and penalties. And so he’s been spending the last few days obsessively tweeting about me. You would think if you had $1 trillion, you’d have better things to do, but this is what’s occupying him.Krugman: Yeah, let’s back up a bit. One of the things that I found really kind of astonishing in the whole discussion—and obviously, SpaceX went public and there was amazingly little discussion of Musk’s role at DOGE where he was a quasi-government official. I guess it was kind of weird what the legal basis for all of that was—but this had immense impacts. And as you say, one of them was that he just, more or less by personal fiat, eliminated USAID, which is our premier aid agency. Do you have any thoughts just generally about what Musk did at DOGE? I think it’s a hell of a story, so let’s start with that.Khanna: The keywords you used were “by personal fiat.” I mean, he literally went there, didn’t consult Congress, didn’t report to Congress, and just started cutting programs that Congress had explicitly authorized. And no one stopped him. We voted to subpoena him, but he defied coming in and explaining anything to Congress. By some accounts, he cut 83% of the programs that were at USAID. And some of these programs are to feed some of the poorest people in the world; some are to provide medicines to some of the poorest people in the world. So, you literally had the world’s richest person hurting the world’s poorest people. And he was doing it with no accountability, in defiance of Congress.Congress then fortunately restored some of these programs, so he was not able to end all of them. But the USAID programs are a shadow of their former self. They now are scattered in administration, and many were so disrupted that these academic studies have shown that it potentially could—or in some cases already has—led to the deaths of some of the poorest people and children in the world.Krugman: Yeah, the important thing is what he did. But the attitude also at the time... I think he said something like, “Oh, I just fed USAID to the wood chipper, and I could have gone to some great parties instead,” as if it was, you know, annoying that he had to go out there and cut off medical aid for millions of children.Khanna: Yeah, it was total arrogance. He said it was all fraud, but of course, he then didn’t have the guts to come before Congress or the American people and explain where he found fraud. He didn’t consult any of these programs. It’s not like he was on a plane to Africa or a plane to other parts of the world where these programs were being administered. And for someone who was going to go after cuts to the federal budget, instead of starting at the Department of Defense, which is 65% or so of the discretionary federal budget, he decides to start with an administration with less than 1% of the federal budget. It was a purely ideological agenda that, turns out, has real-world consequences—especially with this Ebola outbreak. I mean, one of the things he cut was the oversight and testing in places like the Republic of the Congo, and now we’re seeing the consequences.Krugman: And his reaction has been really quite over the top, considering, you know, if you’re any kind of public figure, you expect to be facing criticism.Khanna: It’s just denial, right? I think he said that not a single person has died because of his cuts, which is totally implausible. He said, “there’s not a single documented case.” And he said that everything he cut was simply a fraud, and that these academic studies are totally fraudulent. Granted, the Lancet study is a model of what could happen, but the Atul Gawande study is actually a documentation of actual deaths that have taken place. And there are a lot of anecdotal statements which Nicholas Kristof and a lot of people have reported on.Krugman: And now he’s threatening to sue you. Presumably, I don’t think we’re that far gone that there’s any chance that such a suit would prevail, but how much of that is an actual burden on you?Khanna: Well, I put it into Grok to see how strong a case Elon has, and Grok doesn’t think he has a very strong case. So there’s that.Krugman: In case anybody doesn’t know, Grok is Elon Musk’s or xAI’s LLM. It’s a competitor to ChatGPT and Claude, except it’s not really a competitor because it’s awful, right? But yeah.Khanna: I would have a better case of defamation given what he has said about me. But, of course, I believe in free speech, Paul. I thought he did, too, and I would never think of suing someone for calling me a robber or calling me names. That’s the First Amendment. But I’ll tell you what it does: it creates a doubt in other people who are on the Oversight Committee—you know, “Is this really worth the bother? Should we really criticize Musk?” So that’s one thing.Obviously, Musk has more than one vote. He’s got millions of dollars that he can spend on candidates, but now it turns out it’s not enough for him to just have the ability to support Super PACs; he also wants to be able to intimidate any public official who dares to go against him. It’s not just that he would spend money against them, but that he could actually sue them. And so if you’re a member of Congress, you’re thinking, “Well, do I really want this fight? Or maybe we could just focus on the hundred other issues.” So, it’s less about the headache for me and more about the signal he’s sending to other elected officials.Krugman: So you aren’t trying to do a GoFundMe for a legal defense or anything like that? Because I know people who have faced other spurious lawsuits and it’s actually cost them money, even though there’s no chance of it prevailing. They feel that they do need to hire people, but you’re not in a position where you are personally feeling liable? Or are you just well-positioned to sort of weather this?Khanna: Well, he hasn’t sued yet. If he does sue, it will be a drain on resources and we would have to raise funds. We would. But I don’t want to have people do something before there is an actual lawsuit. We’ll see what he does. But that’s exactly what his strategy is, whether it’s against someone like me or just a message to others that he has unlimited resources and he can make your life very, very difficult.Krugman: Okay. And he’s also called for you... I guess there was nothing specific about why, but for you to be put in jail, which is even more amazing.Khanna: Yes. And ordinarily you would kind of laugh it off because he’s a private person with no power. But of course, in this administration, him calling for that and the way the Justice Department works—there are political motives to how they’ve been operating. I mean, they have the governor of California and his wife that they’re threatening along with Adam Schiff... the list is long how they have operated.Krugman: Yeah. I’m a friend of Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve and for her, this has been much more. She was, in fact, targeted and all of that by essentially the same gang. So yeah, it’s quite something. Just the last bit: Musk has also then gone out with this claim that USAID somehow is responsible for COVID, and also went full-in on the conspiracy theories about COVID. Do you have any comment on that, just since it came up in this context?Khanna: It’s so nonsensical. I don’t even understand what he’s talking about. I think what he is trying to argue is that the lab that some people believe was the testing ground for the virus somehow is connected to USAID, but he just puts these things out there with no evidence and for ideological reasons. The reality is the large part of USAID was to help poor people with food and medicine, and it had support from everyone from George W. Bush on.Krugman: Yeah. I’m pretty sure that USAID doesn’t actually spend money creating labs in China.Khanna: I’m 99% sure that’s true. I mean, Paul, you and I usually check things before we say something definitively. Elon doesn’t have any of those filters, so he’s just throwing these things out there.Krugman: Yeah. It’s pretty terrifying. The world’s richest man with a very strong political in with the U.S. government and... just, wow. Well, that was in the news so I thought I’d ask.Khanna: He does have a huge platform, right? I mean, he has 240 million followers. So him saying, “Okay, I’m going to sue Khanna. Khanna is a horrible, evil human being,” you know, has more reach by far than when I go on Meet the Press or ABC News. And he’s putting out basic falsehoods, so it’s a real danger.Krugman: Yeah. Okay, let’s move on. So the technology of the moment is AI. Last time we talked, which is a while back now—I mean, a while back in tech time, anyway—we were talking about crypto, and there’s a little bit of the distracted boyfriend thing where people are looking now at AI instead of crypto. But AI does look really much more substantive. You can actually almost start to see its impact on productivity, maybe on layoffs. So it looks like a serious technology. And you’ve been staking out a position which is calling for a lot more intervention and regulation. Do you want to talk about what you think is happening and what needs to be done?Khanna: Well, so far, AI has been enriching tech lords and tech billionaires, but it’s caused deep anxiety with ordinary Americans. And I would argue that there are four things we need to do. We need to first care about jobs. Now, here’s the good news, Professor Krugman: it used to be that the people who cared about a jobs program were folks in de-industrialized communities—blue-collar, or people who had lost factory jobs. Now you have kids at Brown, kids at Yale who are worried about whether they’re going to have a job. So I think there’s an opportunity for a broad coalition to have the most ambitious jobs agenda in a generation.And what does that look like? I would say first, it means taxing agentic AI more than we tax human workers. This is not my idea; it’s Daron Acemoglu’s idea, which is basically that the tax code is biased towards capital. If you have to hire someone, you’ve got to pay their health insurance and you’ve got to pay a payroll tax. If you want to have an agentic AI worker or a robot, you don’t have to pay that. So, neutralizing that tax code.Second, we should—and I’ve argued this—have a “Work for America” program, a federal jobs program for young people out of school, out of trade school, or out of college to rebuild communities, maybe to come to the federal government. Maybe they go to a community that they didn’t grow up in. This can be akin to military service and can help rebuild not just the physical infrastructure of America, but the social infrastructure.Third, bargaining power for employees. So, not just go retrain them, but give them an actual say in the company if there are going to be layoffs. What role will they have? If there’s going to be displacement, what jobs would they have? Are they going to get a share of the profits from the increase in AI productivity? Are they going to get time off with the increased productivity?And finally, a sense of ensuring that jobs are there, that there’s intervention in having humans in the loop in various jobs—whether that’s the four million truck drivers and thinking about their role, or whether it’s jobs making decisions about people’s healthcare or making decisions about their finances.Krugman: So, yeah, I mean, a few things to unpack here. One is, obviously, nobody really knows what this is going to be, but we are starting to see, or we think we’re seeing, real job impacts and income impacts from AI. Probably. If you had to say, where would we be seeing these things first? It would be kind of in your district, right? So, what do we actually see? What are you hearing from your own constituents?Khanna: First, it’s much harder to get hired into these tech jobs. There’s a lot of anxiety from 21-, 22-, and 23-year-olds and their parents. The job market used to be, even at a place like Stanford, “Okay, I’m going to get 10 or 15 offers before I’m done with my senior year.” Now, they’re lucky to get a job, or it’s much harder to get a good job.Second, there have been a fair amount of tech layoffs. Now, some people are arguing that was because they overhired in the pandemic and they’re correcting for that, but it’s hard to imagine that AI is not at least part of the factor in that, and that it’s not just a correction for overhiring.And then third, just the sense of what the new jobs in these tech companies are going to look like in terms of being able to implement AI or use AI, and what computer science is going to look like in different schools.Krugman: Yeah, it is interesting what you just said, which is that we have a better chance of getting action because the jobs at stake here are sort of high-education rather than blue-collar work. In a way, that’s an indictment of our politics—that in some sense, we think Stanford graduates feeling aggrieved carry more weight than ten blue-collar workers in Ohio. But on the other hand, it is really striking, right? Obviously, you’re hearing from people who are just seeing that entry-level jobs are not there. To what extent is this actually manageable? Can we channel this, or is this technology just going to sweep away efforts at, particularly, job retention?Khanna: I do think it’s manageable in that there are a lot of human tasks, in my view, that can’t simply be automated: goal setting, team building, and the origination of customized new ideas for settings. And there’s a lot of work, public work, that can be done—whether it’s opening new parks, whether it’s helping represent people who are underserved, whether it’s making government services better, whether it’s providing counseling, whether it’s providing teaching, or whether it’s providing childcare. So, in my view, there is a role for a robust federal jobs program, and it could help in de-industrialized areas and for factory jobs.And we should keep in mind, we wanted to do this years ago when we saw the devastating effects of globalization, but our politics, for whatever reason, didn’t allow it. And now you have a much broader set of people with anxiety. Of course, it’s not the Great Depression when FDR had 20 to 30% unemployment and a total collapse in demand, but it is one where you meet an average person who’s concerned about it. And I think there is polling showing 30 to 40% of Americans are anxious about jobs. That seems to me to provide a moment where a politician coming with a jobs agenda or intervention in the free market would have a reception which, in a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, has been very hard to get. People just say you’re interfering in the markets.Krugman: Just to say—I mean, you kind of implicitly said this—but in effect, you’re calling for something like a WPA (Works Progress Administration) or CCC, ‘30s-style, but at least in part for tech workers, not just for people with shovels, but people doing skilled—I hate that word—but high-education-content work. Have you put any kind of numbers to this, or is it just a general outline at this point?Khanna: I wrote an op-ed called “Work for America” in The Wall Street Journal, and it was about $50 billion a year, which I said you could fund through an AI token tax. And it would be hiring anyone out of high school or out of college for jobs to open a park, to help with their local community, to teach, or to come to the federal government to do something. What I was particularly excited about is that kids growing up in Fremont, in my district, could go to Middletown, Ohio, to do something there so that you’re building things. And it would help for folks who may be displaced.And I explicitly said it was inspired by FDR’s Works Progress Administration, which hired 8 million people. Of course, that’s where the “boondoggle” idea came from, because some people back then said some of those jobs weren’t real—they were criticizing it. But my understanding, and you’re a better student of history, is that it did work in creating meaningful employment and many meaningful projects, and certainly helped the social infrastructure of the country.Krugman: I want to come back to jobs in a second, but you’re basically at least accepting as a strong possibility that this technology is biased towards capital and away from labor. Are you seeing that? Is that really what’s happening?Khanna: We’re certainly seeing it in terms of the explosion of wealth in my district and with billionaires. And we’ll get to the idea of a billionaire tax, but I mean, they have reaped massive amounts of benefit from the AI revolution, and we haven’t been seeing that for the average worker or even the average tech worker. They’re not reaping the rewards in the way that a few people have.And you’re seeing this also in terms of, certainly, the difficulty in entry-level jobs. I mean, when I was at Suffolk University and giving one of the commencement speeches, the line that got the most applause was when I said we need to tax agentic AI more than human workers. Young people are concerned about AI, and I don’t think their fears are totally irrational; I think they’re finding the job market to be harder. And I have a lot of cases in my district of people at these tech companies who are being laid off or told that they need to be let go. Now, you talk to the tech leaders and they’ll say there are other factors too—they’ll cite overhiring in the pandemic, they’ll say they’re just adjusting. So, I don’t know if there are academic studies that show it’s correlated completely to AI, but I certainly think it is one of the variables. And I think there was one study at Stanford showing that for young people in automatable jobs, AI had contributed.Krugman: Okay, you gave a commencement talk and got a positive response, unlike Eric Schmidt and, there have been multiple instances, but I guess Eric Schmidt is the famous one, the former CEO of Google, giving a commencement address in which he started to talk about AI and immediately got massive boos from the students.Khanna: I took the opposite tack. I said AI is not doing your generation a good service, and it’s something that we need to be tackling—not preaching all the benefits of AI. And it was a surprise to me because that was not the place where I expected to get applause. It was not the central part of my address, but the two places that got the most applause were calling for a billionaire tax and calling for a jobs program and taxing AI, which I was almost going to keep out of it because I thought, “Is that too political?” But the students, actually, that’s what resonated with them.Krugman: And so, at least conceptually, there are two separate issues. There’s a wealth tax, which I want to get to in a bit, but you’re talking about essentially—you call it a token tax—a tax basically on the use of AI. Are we able to implement that? Do you think it can be done reasonably well?Khanna: I do. It seems to me that’s the easiest thing because right now there’s a cost, of course, to the use of AI. And there’s a large debate, by the way, about what that cost is because it’s fairly expensive. It turns out it’s fairly expensive in terms of the energy consumption of AI; it’s expensive in terms of the capital expenditure for data centers, which is a whole separate conversation. And so, the question of labor displacement, I think, also depends upon how much AI costs actually come down or don’t come down. But right now, companies are paying a lot for the use of these tokens, which is basically the output of AI when you type something into ChatGPT. And so, if you just put a tax on that, that would both disincentivize automation and would raise revenue.Krugman: I’m not aware of an earlier parallel where there was something—sort of an output of machinery at some level—that could be compared in a way with labor. And of course, aside from income taxes, the FICA on every paycheck shows that we tax labor. And you’re just saying that we should do something for the stuff that’s coming from AI capital, right?Khanna: Yeah. That’s exactly right. And simply put, the idea right now is that it’s not just that people have a higher degree of variability because you could get sick, you need to be with your kids, or you have to pay health insurance. We’re not taxing what these tech people are saying is labor-replacing, and so we should tax that.Krugman: Okay. Now, people’s immediate reaction is, “Oh, but we’re in a competitive race with China.” What’s your answer to people who say, “Oh, you know, if we start to tax this stuff, we will forfeit the lead to other countries. It’s a great international race.”Khanna: Well, first of all, even China is changing its policies. I read recently that some of the court decisions in China are saying you can’t lay off people based on AI, and they have almost 18% youth unemployment. When I went there, a lot of the young folks didn’t want to work in the factories, and they’re concerned about losing jobs. So, I think China itself is realizing that having just unregulated AI is not healthy for society.The second thing is we want to compete with excellence. That’s always been the American aspiration—that we want to have products that have the highest standards. We want to have high safety standards, the highest set of standards in terms of privacy. So, if we’re producing AI that is safe, where agentic AI isn’t going to go do crazy things and isn’t going to engage in surveillance, then that should be something that we can export and be a model for the world. I don’t think we have to have a race to the bottom in the type of AI we produce.Krugman: Okay. And AI that’s safe, which, of course, is one of the big concerns. Any thoughts on the runaway models? Grok, which you mentioned, apparently was used for targeting in Iran with not-very-good results. Are you hearing anything, or is there any movement on intervention—basically congressional action to try and avoid some of these dangers from AI?Khanna: There hasn’t been, because this administration has basically said, “Let the tech billionaires do whatever they want.” The only time they’ve shown any interest in regulation is with Mythos, Anthropic’s latest model, which could detect cyber vulnerabilities. And it’s unclear whether their concern is simply motivated by the unsafety of Anthropic’s model or is retribution because Dario Amodei got into a fight with Pete Hegseth. But other than that issue, the administration has basically said, “Do whatever you want.”And it’s really scary because usually, even by these tech leaders’ own worries, they say, “This is transformational. This is going to change the world. This is the most important technology since fire.” Well, if that’s really the case, we have a federal agency for electricity, we have a federal agency for nuclear weapons and nuclear power—why wouldn’t we have a federal agency for AI, on your own terms? And yet there’s been no effort to do that.Krugman: Okay, for listeners, by the way, Amodei is the CEO of Anthropic. The two big models out there are OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Claude, which is Anthropic. Most of the buzz that I’m hearing about usability involves Claude, but Anthropic is politically not that aligned with the administration and has particularly said that it will not allow its AI to be used for autonomous weapons, and that has made them on the outs. And it’s really very hard, right? When the administration lays down rules or policies on AI, you can never tell whether they’re really concerned or whether they’re just trying to punish a company that isn’t on their side. That’s what you’re saying about Mythos, right?Khanna: Exactly. And I mean, given the administration’s history in general on retribution across so many places, but also in this explicit retribution against Anthropic... there, Amodei basically said that he didn’t think technology should be used in a way that would violate privacy. He didn’t think AI should be used to make decisions about what to strike without human judgment. Hegseth didn’t like that; they had a whole fight. And so now that they have Mythos, it may be that there really should be regulations and export controls because this technology is explosive and could cause cyber vulnerabilities. The problem is we don’t know, because the administration also has a motive for retribution, and they’ve lost the credibility of any independence.Krugman: Yeah, that makes it especially hard now. All right. It’s actually amazing how much impact Anthropic’s products are having. I’ve been talking with senior financial types on stuff, and it’s amazing how often I hear, “Well, I was thinking about that, so I asked Claude.” It really is shocking how—you know, we’re not talking about saying, “I had my staff go and look it up,” it’s, “I went and asked Claude myself.” So, like it or not, this is the world we’re in now.Okay, it seems to me that your whole vision is a step beyond. I mean, if you go back to actually quite early on when they were still making apocalyptic warnings and Sam Altman was saying, “Oh, well, given AI, we’re going to have to have something like—” I don’t think he exactly used these words, but something like, “We’re going to have to have taxes on capital to pay for universal basic income.” And that’s kind of the Silicon Valley vision. But your idea is more that we should have taxes on the wealth that’s been created to help provide for job programs. So, it’s not just that we’re going to give people money so they can sit at home and let the machines do stuff, but we’re going to subsidize ways that give people work.Khanna: Absolutely. And that work could be childcare, it could be home care, it could be new types of industry, it could be helping provide better government services, or it could be doing something meaningful in the community. I believe we have the need for productive work, and that the federal government should play that role.And by the way, the hypocrisy of some of these tech folk saying, “Just tax me so we can have universal income”—well, they’re not willing to pay the tax. I mean, when you look at Sam Altman’s proposal on universal basic income, which is, “Take a 2% tax on my company every year in terms of equity shares,” if you just did the math on that, after five years, maybe every year, each American would get about a $1,000. That’s not exactly universal income. So, I’m not for just taxing and giving everyone a check and saying work doesn’t matter. I don’t think that’s a healthy society, but they’re not even willing to do the first part of that, which is pay the tax. It’s just empty rhetoric.Krugman: Yeah. I always had a problem that these proposals for UBI—even if they raised enough money—the amounts are not enough to live on, and also just collecting what we used to call welfare is not a substitute for actually having meaningful work.So, let’s talk first about the California proposal for a one-time wealth tax, which you are supporting, but is amazingly controversial even within the Democratic Party. Tell me about the proposal and some of the criticisms.Khanna: There are three million people in California who risk losing their healthcare because of the big, ugly bill that Trump passed, which everyone acknowledges cuts Medicaid and cuts the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. So, that’s a fact that everyone acknowledges—that these folks are going to lose their healthcare. The second fact that people acknowledge is that there are about 200,000 healthcare workers—nurses, aides, hospital workers—who are going to lose their jobs.And what this program, this ballot initiative, says is: let’s have a one-time 5% tax on billionaires. There are about 250 of these billionaires. Their worth, as Gabriel Zucman’s work shows, is about $2 trillion. That is the equivalent—and I’m not saying it’s the same thing—but it’s the equivalent of about half of California’s GDP. There are 250 people who are worth that. And if you tax them one time at 5%, you could literally raise about $100 billion and make sure that we cover all of these Californians, and that we don’t lose 200,000 jobs.The ballot designers went and said, “Okay, let’s just do 2%,” and that proposal was rejected. That would have raised $40 billion and staved off the crisis for two years. And so now we’re going to the ballot on this. These 250 billionaires, by the way, have made about 150% over the last three years. Their wealth has increased 150% largely because of AI, and yet they’re not willing to pay a 5% one-time tax to make sure that Californians don’t lose healthcare.Krugman: It always astonishes me how small the number of people that we’re talking about is, right? It still annoys me when people talk about the 1%, because we’re talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of 1%—just 250 people in California. But it’s a quite significant amount of money that could be raised by such a tax, right? So, the first question people ask is: won’t they all just decamp, leave? What would be the possibilities for avoidance—not evasion, since evasion is illegal, but avoidance is not—so that everyone won’t just pull up stakes?Khanna: So, first of all, we have actual data on this. We know that in Q1 of 2026, 85% of venture capital in America went to California—the highest ever. And this is months after the state ballot initiative was announced, and when you’re seeing reports of Sergey Brin and others leaving. So, in terms of capital investment into California, it has only increased since the announcement of the ballot initiative. And that’s obvious; no one thinks that the AI revolution is happening in Miami or happening in Austin. It’s happening in Silicon Valley. It’s happening in my district and the surrounding areas. So, you may be losing some individuals, but you’re not losing the capital into Silicon Valley, and that’s just what the data shows.The second thing is, okay, maybe you lose some of these individuals, but as Zucman’s work has shown, these billionaires are only paying about 2.5% of the total general fund in California. And the reason they’re paying so little is because they basically weren’t being taxed—I mean, they don’t have income. And so, if you lose a few people, it’s not some devastating blow to the tax revenue of the state, and you’re not losing the capital investment.And the final point is, if you haven’t moved already, you’re subject to the tax the way it was designed: it’s one-time, and it’s based on whether you were in the state by the end of last year or not.Krugman: Okay, that’s really important. It’s a retroactive tax, in a way. It is a levy, but that’s kind of okay, so there would be no possibility of people avoiding it. But I guess one criticism has been that while they can’t avoid this tax, they won’t pay income tax in the future. But you’re saying that they basically weren’t paying income tax before.Khanna: And the irony of it is, what’s the point of making money? Part of it is you get to do things that you want to do. One of the most basic things that people want to do is live where they want to live. And the idea that you would be a billionaire and then not want to live where your family is, or where you like, or where you grew up, or where you find it most fulfilling simply because of tax considerations seems to be quite ironic. And the truth is that there are a lot of billionaires who will grumble and say all of that, but aren’t going to be leaving California.Krugman: One of my favorite lines was about the attempts to turn Miami into the new Wall Street. There was some Wall Street guy who told Bloomberg, “The trouble with moving to Florida is that you have to live in Florida.” There’s a California version of that.So, this would be a one-time California thing. Do you have a vision for what an attempt to kind of make AI and just general technology less of something for a few hundred people would look like? What would America 2035 look like if we could have a Ro Khanna vision of policy?Khanna: We would have a new social contract. We would be taxing these billionaires and trillionaires, and that would raise about $4 trillion if you did it at 5% a year. You would have other basic taxes—have an actual effective corporate tax rate that is at least 28%; right now, they’re not even paying 21%. You would have capital taxed the same as ordinary income. You would have a step-up in basis. You’d raise that revenue rate—Krugman: We should mention “a step-up in basis.” Why don’t you explain what it means?Khanna: Well, that’s when these people die and their kids get their estate. But if they had huge stock appreciation in their lives, their kids don’t have to pay taxes on that stock appreciation.Krugman: Yeah. We’ve got a system in which a large part of capital income is basically never taxed. So you’re talking about eliminating that.Khanna: Why would we have a system that’s already capital-biased, where basically, if you have this capital, you’re making money in your sleep and you’re paying less taxes than someone who’s a doctor or nurse or a factory worker who pays ordinary income tax?That should be leveled.And when people say, “Do billionaires deserve what they make?” I don’t deny that they have built something often of value, and that they’re hard-working, and that they’re entrepreneurial. I’m just saying that the system—because of the way we tax capital less, because of the way that corporate taxes aren’t really collected, because of the fact that we don’t have a wealth tax, because of the way we have allowed the estate tax to operate—has allowed for the accumulation of extraordinary wealth beyond what a system with a rational tax code would allow.And so if we had a rational tax code, we’d have all of this revenue, and then you could do things like having universal childcare at $10 a day, having a thousand new trade schools, having free public college (which we had in California in 1960, and in many places as well), having a jobs program, making sure that we had a livable wage and union bargaining power, and expanding healthcare. I mean, I’m ultimately for a single-payer, Medicare-for-All system, but at least expanding it, doing things like dental, vision, hearing, and making sure that we had drug negotiation.All of this is to say something very simple: when I go around the country and I say Elon Musk has become a trillionaire, I’m met with huge boos. And when I talk about these tech billionaires, huge boos. That was not always the case in America where people would just boo successful business leaders. It should be a wake-up call that most people don’t think that their lives are improving, even though we’re generating more wealth than ever before. And my view is: why can’t we have a society, if we’re generating all this wealth, where most Americans feel like they have more economic security? And how do we do this?And the last point I would say is, I’m the nice guy. I’m 49 years old, about to turn 50. You know, the folks in their 30s, the folks who are winning in New York, they’re not as nice as me saying, “Okay, let’s just have a new social contract.” They want to rip the total system down. They’ve had it. They want a total revolution. And so, either we’re going to have this transformation, or we’re going to have a far more radical new generation that is totally upset at society.Krugman: So, you’re basically saying you can do these reforms, you can do something that will spread the benefits, create societal sharing, or the pitchforks and torches will be coming for you. Is that a good way to summarize it?Khanna: [Laughs] That’s my message. I’ll say pay it as an anti-revolution tax. But you know what? Even in my district, Paul, when I have town halls and I say, “What do you think of a billionaire tax?”—and I remember in one of the most affluent districts in the world—90% of folks will raise their hand: “Yes, it’s a good idea.” To your point, this is not talking about the 1%. I can’t do the math, but the 0.0001%. Everyone wants them to pay taxes. The doctors do, the investment bankers do. And then there will be people who say, “No, Ro, I disagree.” I say, “Why is that?” And they’ll say, “Well, why is it just 5%? I want 20%.” I mean, they’re not thinking of the wealth tax necessarily and what consequences that would have.But this is the sentiment, not just in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio; this is the sentiment in my district. And I think a lot of people are oblivious to the anger and the anxiety young people have. They can’t buy a house, they have huge debt, they don’t think their lives are going to resemble their parents’, and don’t understand why that’s the case in a nation that’s producing so much wealth.I mean, you’ve done a lot of work on this, and I’d ask you, in development economics and often in the developing world, there’s a trade-off between economic development and economic fairness, right? But it seems to me what’s so ironic in our case is that trade-offs don’t need to exist. We’re producing all this wealth; it’s simply a matter of values that we’re not allowing most Americans to have economic security.Krugman: That might be a good coda here. I mean, it is an extraordinary thing that we don’t seem to be facing a trade-off. It really is the case that in almost every respect except the wealth of a few hundred people, this kind of fairness agenda looks positive. So, how are you feeling about the politics of it? Do you think you’re getting traction?Khanna: I do. You know, they poured in $1 million-plus against me with my primary opponent [a Democrat who opposed the wealth tax]. And California’s a weird system: Democrats, Republicans, we all run together. I got 62%, my challenger got 6%, and the Republicans got the rest. So, I think that was a bit of a wake-up call for some of these folks that, you know, democracy still works. And I’m very, very optimistic heading into the midterms that this central idea of fairness is one that’s resonating with many people. And I am confident we’re going to take back the House.Krugman: Okay. The congressman from Silicon Valley says democracy may still work. I think that’s a really optimistic punchline.Thanks so much for talking with me. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Chips Are Down 24.06.2026 10min

  For all my interviews and more, subscribe on YouTube.A short talk in lieu of a post. Back on full duty tomorrow.Transcript:Hi, Paul Krugman here. I’m recording this on Tuesday afternoon. I just won’t have time to write a normal post for tomorrow when you’ll see this. And I would take the day off, except it seemed to me as if people might want some reaction to the carnage that’s been going on, at least in part of the tech sector and stock markets around the world, which has been pretty remarkable. It’s really tempting to say that it’s deeply meaningful. But in general, you want to be very cautious about putting too much stake in stock market events. I’ll come back to that in a minute. But it is striking enough that it does seem to be worth commenting on. So what’s happened? There’s been a fall in tech stocks very much concentrated in semiconductors. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index was down almost 8%. on Tuesday. The KOSPI Korean Index, which is largely a semiconductor index, was down just about 10% sort of the previous day or the same day, you know, time zones. And there was a 2.2% fall in the NASDAQ. We’ve seen a lot of decline in tech stocks, things related above all to chips. What’s going on there? Part of the answer is that trying to understand why the market does what it does is, generally speaking, a mug’s game. In this case, however, it does seem that part of what’s happening, probably a large part of what’s happening, is that the tone, the rhetoric surrounding use of AI, and hence the demand for compute, has really shifted quite a lot just very recently. All of a sudden, we have a spate of studies that seem to show that, yeah, AI models allow people to churn out a lot more stuff, but the actual payoff to that stuff is much, much smaller than the volume of stuff that they’re churning out, most obviously lines of code, but just in general. AI lets you do much more, but how productive that is in terms of the ultimate goals of a business, let alone economic growth and quality of life is much more doubtful. On top of that you have a rather abrupt, jarring turn in business strategy. Up until just the other day a lot of businesses were more or less whipping their workers into using AI — you know, we’re going to judge you on how much you’re using AI whether or not you really want to whether or not you yourself think it’s valuable. We’re actually going to score you, we’re going to require that you do tokenmaxxing. And then, with compute getting scarce and with the price of chips having gone through the roof, suddenly the AI companies began charging and the marginal cost of using a lot of tokens became really, really very high. And suddenly companies were saying, oh wait, stop. We want you to economize on your use of tokens and hence to ultimately reduce the demand for compute. And that’s a sudden U-turn. This is part of a broader phenomenon, which I’m going to write about very soon, which is that there is a kind of lack of organicness to the AI boom. There are people who are using it because it looks great. They’re using it because it’s fun. I have colleagues who are just mucking around with Claude and finding some uses for it. But there’s also a large amount of Corporate America that thinks that this is the way it has to go. Fear of missing out, not by the individual investor, but by the corporate bureaucracy. And then pressure from the financial markets, saying, you know, your company better be on the cutting edge of AI or else. All of which is very fragile. It’s a kind of a bubble, but not in the normal sort of asset price form. It’s more of a kind of fad, almost a social delusion. And that, it seems likely, certainly got ahead of itself.Now, I’m reading way too much into these stock prices. And so let me give you a little bit of a caution on all of that. So yeah, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index was down 8% in a day, which is one hell of a drop. But it was up 157% over the past year.So you want to have some perspective here. This is a stunning setback, but the fact of the matter is that over the course of a year, these stocks have been incredibly high-performing. The KOSPI, the Korean index, was down 10%, strictly speaking, 9.99%. But anyway, it was down 10%.But after that 10% fall, it was up 172% over the year. So we’re not talking about a catastrophe. We’re not yet talking about, we aren’t even talking about a Bitcoin level of disappointment for investors. But okay, it’s a break in the trend. The other thing we should say: the famous old line by my teacher and colleague, Paul Samuelson, was that the stock market had predicted nine of the last five recessions. There’s many more than that now. In fact, just over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve had two major stock market declines that turned out to be false alarms. There was a big decline in April of 2025 after Liberation Day, the Trump tariffs, because there was a lot of people just sort of, it’s chaos, terrible things may happen. While the tariffs have been a bad thing, they did not cause an economic catastrophe and stocks recovered the losses that they experienced then. And then there was another round of major stock declines associated with the Iran war. Of course, the Iran war has been a complete debacle and a disaster, and we’ll be paying a price for that for a very long time. But the consequences for short-run macroeconomics were more modest than many people, myself included, expected. And it appears that the Strait of Hormuz is going to gradually open because the United States basically said, okay, you win. It won’t literally say that, but in practice, that’s what we’re doing. So that is going to be over. So it’s not that uncommon for the markets to react as if something terrible is about to happen and be wrong.And so you really don’t want to assume — there’s a real temptation to assume — that because there’s so much money involved, a big decline in markets must be signaling that something is really very much amiss in the fundamentals, that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And sometimes, no, there’s just smoke, no fire.So this might not be that big a deal. But it comes at a moment when the rhetoric really has shifted. You can see that there’s just a kind of a walking back. There was a really striking interview just the other day with Satya Nadella of Microsoft. Microsoft is actually a consumer of AI, rather than a producer. They have tools you can use within Microsoft products, but I think they run basically off OpenAI. And Nadella was pretty scathing about saying, you know, we can’t give all of this power and all this money to the big AI companies, and we should be using cheaper models. And hinted that Microsoft may start making use of DeepSeek, the Chinese model, which is less comprehensive. In general, the Chinese models are less comprehensive, but immensely cheaper, and among other things, just do a lot less computation. That’s kind of the core of why they’re cheaper.And in that case, the picture changes a lot. What bearing does all of this have on AI and the future of the economy and AI and the future of humanity? Well, part of what we’re seeing may not be so much disappointment in what AI can do as realizing that this extremely compute-intensive AI is not essential.And maybe you can still get whatever the big productivity benefits are and still possibly the big labor-displacing effects without quite so much compute. But it’s not entirely separate either. I think we need to be saying that this is what a quasi-bubble quasi-bursting might look like. Take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Arindrajit Dube on Wages 20.06.2026 53min

  I often think of labor economics as a role model for the field: a subfield in which theory is disciplined by evidence and (most) researchers are willing to listen to that evidence even when it challenges their preconceptions. And hardly anyone does modern labor economics as well as UMass Amherst’s Arindrajit Dube, who has an excellent new book out. I talked with him about that book and the state of labor more generally.. . .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Arindrajit Dube(recorded 6/18/26)Paul Krugman: One of the most satisfying parts of economics, which doesn’t get as much attention as it should, is labor economics. It’s obviously important. Most of us work for a living, or at least pretend to work for a living. But also it is a field, a subfield you might say; more scientific than almost anything else in economics, really evidence-based. You’ve had multiple revelations where the data have actually changed the way people, myself included, have thought about stuff. And among the most effective, prominent practitioners of modern labor economics is Arin Dube, who has a new book called The Wage Standard. And I thought we’d take a break from all the other stuff going on and talk about Arin’s work. So hi, Arin.Arindrajit Dube: Hi Paul, nice to see you.Krugman: Yeah, welcome to my virtual studio. Why don’t you talk just a little bit about The Wage Standard and what you’re trying to do, and then we can get into the broader labor economics issues?Dube: Yeah. So, I wrote a book. Here it is.Krugman: By the way, we mostly don’t do that in economics; we write 5,000-word articles.Dube: Exactly. Paul, of course, you’ve written many amazing books. But economists don’t usually write books. We publish articles.Krugman: That’s right.Dube: And so it was actually a big deal for me to sort of think about, did I want to write a book? And I kind of went for a number of years and I said, like, “Oh, well, I’m not writing this book for other economists as a main audience,” though of course, I’m very happy for other economists to read it, but I wanted to try to have a broader conversation, and I needed to be clear that I wanted to know what I was going to say in that conversation.And so here’s basically the main point of the book. The main argument is that Americans deserve a raise, that most American workers actually could get paid more and should get paid more. And there are really good reasons to think that. You know, the market has not delivered what could be a sustainable but higher wage for those in the bottom and lower part of the income distribution. So that’s basically the core idea. And I try to bring in what we know about the research that I think has really blossomed in the last decade or two decades on a bunch of topics when it comes to understanding the labor market.I was writing this book at the beginning of the pandemic and especially 2021. And it was really interesting because this was one of the more remarkable episodes in the labor market that really highlighted a lot of things that I was actually talking about in the book. Of course, it did it in a very messy way, because there were lots of things happening during that time. But it made for a very interesting process where I felt like I was writing the book and the world was writing itself outside, which was both exciting and challenging.Krugman: Okay. I said that labor economics has been revelatory. When I was not young, but younger, I think most economists circa 1990 would have thought of the labor market as just being a market of supply and demand. And where they crossed determines wages, and there’s nothing much you can do about it. And if you try to change it, you do so at your peril; bad things will happen. And as you say in the book, and in many of your writings that I’ve been following on all this stuff, that’s something that really, really changed. You want to talk about what happened?Dube: Yeah. So, one really interesting thing is to think about how wages are set. And we could start with the basic supply and demand story, which basically is that there’s demand for workers of different skills and then there’s supply. And depending on the supply and demand conditions, you’re going to have different wages, a different skill price. And let me be clear, I think there’s a lot of important aspects of that that actually matter, but it’s also incomplete. Because here’s the thing: if the market really worked like the textbook supply and demand story, basically workers of a particular type would just get paid the same—that’s the skill price. But in reality, it turns out companies have a substantial degree of discretion in setting pay. And you can start to see this by just looking across companies hiring similar workers, but choosing to pay someone different.One simple example to start with is FedEx and UPS. Workers may be driving very similar routes delivering similar packages, but it turns out FedEx pays lower than UPS. UPS has maybe 37% of the workers; a few years back, they were paying less than $20 an hour. For FedEx, it was more like 60%. And so, of course, that’s just one example, but you have others. Like, look at Walmart versus Target. It turns out that Walmart tends to be paying somewhat lower than many of its other similar, large retail competitors. And the list goes on. But this is not a new observation. Labor economists who were studying this in the mid-20th century had gone and collected surveys and understood that, you know, factories in the same labor market could be paying different wages.But here’s what was not fully convincing: how do we know that it’s not maybe somewhat of a different skill mix? Maybe these companies are similar, but they’re hiring somewhat different types of workers the pay difference reflects that. So that argument held sway for decades until we had better data. And this is where what you say about labor economics, I think, really is right. And part of that has been our ability to really get much more granular and high-quality data, including administrative data linking pay for virtually most people in the labor market. And you can track them as they go from company to company. So you could say, “Hey, actually, what happens if the same person moves from Walmart to Target? Do you see they’re getting a higher pay?” Because you’re holding their skill set constant there. And so this kind of data and this sort of research design helped establish that actually, no, it turns out there is a substantial amount of variation in pay that comes from companies choosing different types of pay policies. And that’s a big part of the argument in my book, more broadly, that there are choices we have made.You know, if we wanted to go back and look to see what’s happened to productivity and what’s happened to wages since 1980, productivity has grown much more strongly than wages—maybe not as strong as it did in the postwar era, but nonetheless, it grew a lot more than the pay for the typical worker, certainly pay for those at the bottom. And one of the arguments that I make is that this reflects choices made in a variety of places, and that starts from choices at a corporate level, different companies choosing different pay policies, all the way to policies that are being made by state and federal government. But the core part of it is like, why does that make any sense? It doesn’t make much sense to talk about companies choosing pay policies if the market is just your supply and demand. There’s no role for saying, “Are you doing the high-wage strategy or a low-wage strategy?” That’s a nonsensical question in a perfectly competitive market. But it’s an absolutely sensible question to ask when companies have some degree of wage-setting power.You know, economists have a funny word for this, right? Monopsony. It’s a funny word. But the basic idea is really straightforward. You know, companies are making a choice there. You could go for a higher wage strategy or you could go for a lower wage strategy. Now, if you’re paying lower wages, you are going to have some more people quit and you’re going to have a somewhat harder time recruiting new workers. But the key thing is, it doesn’t mean that if you pay below a hypothetical market wage, everyone bolts, right? So you actually face a meaningful tradeoff of exactly how much more to pay or how much less to pay, and different companies end up choosing different amounts.And this is also where—and this is even more recent, really in the last, you know, 5 to 7 years—we have seen a really big increase in research on the topic of monopsony, so we can really better understand exactly how much wage-setting power companies have. And it just sort of turns out that if a company’s choosing to pay, let’s say, a 10% lower wage, they’re going to have higher quits. Maybe about 14% higher quits. I just finished doing a review for the Journal of Economic Literature, and that’s basically where it sort of lands, and the quit rate is just not super sensitive to wage. So this gives employers a degree of discretion. And they’re going to do a couple of things that are important. First, different companies may choose different strategies. That is what creates these differences across companies. And the way companies have made those choices has really been different in the arc of history.Krugman: Okay. So that’s where actually I came in on this topic, which was a classic paper by Claudia Goldin and Bob Margo. You know, I grew up in a world very different from the world where you grew up, with much more equal wages than we have now. But it turns out that wasn’t something that gradually evolved. It happened in a few years, basically during the New Deal and World War II: the Great Compression.Dube: Absolutely. Yeah. And so that’s a story that has been told. But I also tell it with sort of a labor market focus. And a key part of that was actually creating a set of collective bargaining institutions, starting with the National Labor Relations Act; we had an upsurge in union organizing. And I highlight some more recent work that has been really careful to try to actually understand the causal effect of that unionization, for example, on the wage structure—work by Henry Farber and coauthors that really documents this very carefully. And it’s not just in the National Labor Relations Act. It’s also during the war. The Roosevelt administration actually helped encourage an increase in unionization. And that had a lasting impact on pay setting.So this is basically where, after the end of the war, we had what is called the Treaty of Detroit, which was the landmark agreement, as coined by Fortune magazine, between United Auto Workers and the big three automakers, which spills over into the nonunion sector and other parts of the economy through this pattern bargaining process. But all of that created something very different than we had in the early 20th century. It basically created a set of mechanisms that helped ensure wages stayed relatively well tethered to overall productivity. And wages, both at the bottom and the middle, stayed tethered to the top. There were lots of issues. I don’t want to romanticize the 1950s or early 60s. But when it came to how wages were determined, it just meant you had broader based prosperity.Krugman: So in the wage structure there are social institutions that set norms and so that’s part of it; the thing is much more sort of a surface on which you can move back and forth based on institutions. That was one of the lessons I took from the Great Compression. And now you’re saying that there’s much more of that. And also that you can get away with it. I would say that if somebody now proposed something like what happened during the New Deal and the war, The Wall Street Journal would be running nonstop, fire-breathing editorials about how this will destroy the economy and lead to mass unemployment. And your point is that it doesn’t, because of the range of discretion that companies have in setting wages.Dube: Exactly. And those range of discussions in some cases evolved and were forged in the fire of union organizing and militancy in the ‘30s and ‘40s, and other times. There are ones that come up in an era where it’s largely nonunion workplaces that are expanding—for example, Walmart in the 1980s—and in an era when there’s very different ideologies about how businesses should behave.So the entire shareholder primacy revolution that sort of happens in the ‘70s and ‘80s, turns out had a real impact on how wages were set. I talk about this in the book. Research by Daron Acemoglu from M.I.T. and coauthors find a really interesting fact. So it turns out that actually, most businesses are not run by people with a business school degree. I actually didn’t know that. Even today, that’s actually the case. But the share that actually have a CEO with a business school degree has been rising quite, quite steadily. So what happened, for example, in the ‘80s or the ‘90s, when a company moved for the first time to a CEO with a MBA? Sometimes it’s because maybe someone retired or even died, you know? It sounds kind of grim, but actually it makes for a good natural experiment where, almost like by random, you introduce a CEO with a MBA for the first time. And what’s really interesting is that it leads to a very clear reduction in pay: about a 6% reduction in pay for workers overall, and about a 9% reduction for blue-collar workers. So the labor share falls by about five percentage points. That’s the amount of money going to workers versus owners. And of course, CEO pay rises. Now you may say, well, maybe that happens, and that’s just like the cost of running the business better, right? MBAs probably raise productivity. Wrong. It has no effect on productivity compared to comparable businesses. So it’s purely a rent transfer, as we say. Meaning, you’re taking money from one group and giving it to the other. In this case, the money is going towards owners of capital and high-income managers, and away from the workers, especially blue-collar workers.Krugman: Wow. I always thought that the Harvard Business School was evil, but I didn’t realize it was quite that evil. So that’s pretty impressive. That’s really a significant impact on sort of the nature of our society that comes from almost an academic doctrine.Dube: Absolutely. This is sort of like ideology. It’s ideology, not skills that is explaining this important change here. And, in fact, this turns out to have played a non-trivial role in the fall in the labor share in the United States, for example.Krugman: That’s a really funny thing for me. Economists are supposed to be hard-headed, but in fact, if you really look at the data, and really do economic science, it says that ideology matters a lot.Dube: That’s right. And that’s one of the most important things. The late economist Alan Krueger once actually told me—well, he told us on Twitter in a conversation with me—that the idea that core theory is falsifiable and testable is a really big idea. And that is exactly right. Because if you start with saying, “Well, I’m pretty sure the labor market works this way,” and then I come and tell you, “Oh, actually, you know, it turns out this MBA CEO comes in and pay falls,” so you’d say, “Well, there’s got to be a really good explanation for that that is consistent with my model.” But it’s certainly not because the model is false, because it can’t be. And that basically highlights, in some ways, the conversations we had about the role of the minimum wage, which is something we could talk about as well.Krugman: I want to come back to wage structure for a second. When I say that labor economics is especially good or virtuous, or in some way special, it’s because there’s really this use of natural experiments where something happens and just looking at it—at least on a couple of major occasions—it has contradicted what most economists believed. And I do want to come back to wage structure, but minimum wage is the classic. It’s an extraordinary story. You could probably tell it better than I can. To some extent it’s where you came in, but it’s definitely where Alan Krueger and David Card came in. So let’s talk about that.Dube: Yeah. So maybe one thing just as a background for listeners: the United States, of course, introduced a minimum wage as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the 1930s, and during the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, and even ‘70s, the minimum wage was updated fairly regularly. You could have a Republican president or a Democratic president, or Congress, but it was generally updated and kept up with sort of like the typical or the median wage and even overall productivity and so on. That all changed in 1980, when Ronald Reagan came into power and he didn’t increase the minimum wage; he refused to, because he thought this was a bad idea. And this was also a time in the early ‘80s when, of course, we had real, still high inflation. So the combination of the fact that the nominal minimum wage just stayed put and there was inflation meant the actual real value of the minimum wage fell a lot. And so that had a really important impact on wage inequality at the bottom. It reduced pay for roughly the bottom 30 to 40% of the workforce. And so we went for basically a decade almost at this time without raising the minimum wage.And we have now had several of these long stretches. The most recent one is particularly long: it’s 17 years since we have actually raised the minimum wage. And so that’s a very dysfunctional way to set policy. But here’s the silver lining. The silver lining of dysfunctional policies is that you have natural experiments. So what happened starting in the ‘80s is that states started to come in and raise their own minimum wage. And so you started to create all of these little natural experiments. And this is really what began this literature—it’s called the new minimum wage literature—which started to look to see, ‘hey, New Jersey raised its minimum wage in 1992, but look, neighboring Pennsylvania did not. Eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey are not super different; they’re right next to each other. There’s a lot of similarities, maybe sharing similar types of economic shocks and so forth. Why don’t we compare to see what happened?’ And this is exactly what Alan Krueger and David Card did. They went and surveyed fast-food restaurants on both sides of the state border, and then went back a year later and said, “Well, let’s take a look. What happened? Didn’t we actually see a lower number of jobs in New Jersey?” And what they found really shocked the profession. It turns out, not so much. In fact, not really anything we can see. And, you know, this was really kind of an earth-shattering discovery, because it challenged the core model of the labor market: the labor market is supply and demand, that’s it, there’s not much more to it, just like any other market. And this was really hard to square with it. And I think this led to kind of an emergence of a whole literature.And there are also things written that are very critical and, you know, not very polite about Card and Krueger. But, you know, it led to a lot of debate and also follow-up work, which is the way science progresses, if it’s doing the results that they’re replicated—Krugman: Yeah, the results have been replicated now many times, and you’ve done a fair bit of that. Because there are so many states and so much asynchronous minimum wage increases that you get results. And people might say, “Oh, it’s just fast-food workers in New Jersey.” But it turns out that we have now lots and lots of evidence that says, hey, these minimum wage hikes do not actually seem to cost jobs, or at least not significantly. Right?Dube: Yeah. So I think that my sort of contribution to the literature in our 2010 paper could be probably summarized by the word “many.” We see many of these and for many years, not just one short impact. And what we found was very much along the lines of what Card and Krueger had found. And even more recently, we updated that with more data, and we’re continuing to find very similar effects. In fact, just a couple weeks ago, I put out a Substack post that really sort of leverages, in some ways, an important fact related to what I said—that we’ve not raised the federal minimum wage for 17 years, and that means 20 states have today a $7.25 an hour minimum wage, which economically is sort of equivalent to not having any minimum wage. It’s so low that it barely affects anyone. So we’re running this basically just more than a generation-long experiment where you have about half the country—a little less than half the country—with essentially no minimum wage, while the other half raised it sometimes quite substantially, or comparable to some of our European peer countries. And that creates this very sharp divide.But it also creates a divide that makes it very easy to see what is going on, because you don’t have to do a lot of fancy, you know, econometric statistics to really tell. Just plot, for example, as I do: what’s the restaurant wage in these two groups of states? Well, it turns out there’s a big gap that’s opened up, like maybe an 8 or 9% average earnings gap for restaurant workers. What happened to restaurant employment? It looks pretty much like a flat line. They’ve been growing very similarly. Per capita, restaurant employment has been very similar. And that just makes it very hard to look at that very simple fact and say, “No, I’m pretty sure it’s killing a lot of jobs,” because where is (the data that proves) it?I do a bunch of other things, but this sort of highlights how, for a very long, long stretch of time, we’ve split the country in some ways in half. And by the way, some of these states that have raised the minimum wage have also been more Republican-leaning. A lot of times when the minimum wage is on the ballot, it’s in red and purple states. In fact, this week in Oklahoma for a variety of reasons it didn’t pass, but it has passed in Nebraska, Florida, Arizona, and so on and so forth. So I think this sort of highlights, in some ways, one of the partial successes because we have been able to raise the minimum wage in about half the country. And as we have learned more, I think it has led to policymakers actually experimenting with potentially higher minimum wages. And that has, I think, helped create and raise wages at the bottom, partly offsetting the growth in inequality that had occurred over decades after 1980.Krugman: So I read the Substack post and I noticed that you had some, I would say discreetly acerbic comments for some of the people who refused to believe it. Or maybe it was a later comment of yours. But there have always been some economists who keep on insisting that this cannot be right, either because they believe in Econ 101 and that demand curves slope down, or at least implicitly, a little bit of a political critique because obviously a pro-minimum wage argument or something that seems to say that raising the minimum wage is okay has a kind of political side. But what’s actually striking is how little of that there is—that labor economics makes economics look good in the sense that if you have kind of overwhelming empirical evidence that contradicts people’s preconceptions and maybe even their political slant, people actually mostly go with the evidence. Am I being too idealistic?Dube: I think that’s generally right. I think in general, people have certainly updated their views. It’s not that there’s only a single answer to what does the minimum wage do, regardless of how high it is or something like that; it’s going to differ. And so, there are disagreements like, “Well, where is the turning point?” But that’s part of good science. But to be clear, there will be studies that claim that no, actually the minimum wage always causes job losses. And even just this week, there was one that sort of argued that if you don’t control for population differences, if you just look at the number of jobs, well, the number of jobs in California has grown less than Texas. Most economists, of course, look at what share of people are actually working—that’s the employment rate. But if you simply look at the number of jobs, that actually might suggest that it’s falling.Now, here’s the thing: it has been falling in these minimum-wage-raised states compared to the 20 states that haven’t raised it for four and a half decades. That’s largely driven by college-educated workers, because, of course, we have more college-educated workers moving to the Sunbelt. So, I think this is sort of a silly argument, but it is an argument that has been made. But it goes to show that there will always be studies. But if you look at the body of evidence overall, it suggests that the typical study finds very small employment effects, and especially in studies published in the last ten years, it’s basically around zero. And I think that has had an impact.And I think economists have sort of updated—I would say probably especially younger scholars. Sometimes, you know, as we get older, maybe it becomes harder for some of us to revise our priors, but younger scholars are therefore really important.Krugman: Yeah. I occasionally find people digging up some old quote of mine where I said minimum wages reduce employment, and it’s a 30 or 35-year-old quote, and I get to use the line, “When I see new evidence, I change my mind. What do you do, exactly?” There was a flurry of stuff showing up in my inbox claiming that California raised the minimum wage and it’s a disaster, and the evidence is in. But I guess the evidence actually goes the other way now, right? So what happened in California?Dube: Yeah. So here’s the interesting thing. California established a sector-wide minimum wage for the fast-food workers, higher than the overall minimum wage. So this is a case where this is applying for larger chains with 60 or more locations across the country to have a $20 minimum wage. And at that time, I think the minimum wage was $16 overall in California. So what’s interesting is this is much higher. And it’s also partial coverage, meaning, you know, only part of the low-wage workforce is covered. So you could actually imagine there’d be more theoretical reasons to expect a more negative employment effect, because you can switch—maybe you can relabel workers who are delivery workers as, like, outsourced and so forth, and not covered. So anyway, well, you’ve now had about five studies that have looked at it, including one that I did. And, you know, there are some differences across the studies, but really, it turns out a big part of that is what kind of data is used, in a really surprising way.So there are two kinds of administrative data sources that are really government data accounting based on actual payroll records: the QCEW and the QWI. And I know this is going into the weeds a bit, but it just turns out that one better captures the number of jobs at a point in time, and then the other looks at how many people are in a particular pay period. Now, this increase in wages also raises turnover because these are much better jobs now, so you have less people cycling through the same number of positions. And so there’s one data set that looks at a whole pay period; it seems to find a small reduction in employment. The other looks at a point in time and finds no change. And it turns out this is driven by the fact that these jobs begin so much better: people are not quitting so there’s just a lot lower turnover. But generally speaking, the overall range suggests that the employment effects were quite small—small positive in some cases, small negative depending on exactly how you do it—very large wage effects, and a very sharp reduction in turnover. So even in this very specific and very sharp and high minimum wage increase that serves as an experiment, if you will, it doesn’t show any clear predictions and projections about job losses so far.Krugman: Okay. I want to cycle back just for a couple of minutes to the wage structure issue, where, again, there’s this kind of historical story which says that the United States became relatively egalitarian because of New Deal era and 1940s policies, and then became a lot less equal. It’s funny. I always blame what happened after 1980 on Ronald Reagan, but you’re saying it’s partly the Harvard Business School, but there’s also cross-national comparisons. Talk to me about Sweden and then maybe I’ll weigh in.Dube: Well, I think we’ve both been writing about Europe and both visiting there. And so I was in Sweden for a while and partly talking about this book and also doing some of my research. What’s really interesting is that Sweden, of course, has been historically held up as sort of an egalitarian country, but it’s also gone through quite a bit of reforms in the ‘90s and 2000s, including scaling back partly some of the welfare state. And so I was really curious, like, where are they in terms of inequality? And it turns out that, yeah, if you look at their tax and transfer, they actually redistribute less than they used to. But the starting point, which is how much inequality do you have to begin with from the pay structure, that is still much lower than most other high-income countries. And the United States, of course, is the other extreme.So, just one example: the gap between someone at the 90th percentile and the 10th percentile—that kind of is a good measure of wage inequality—between like the early ‘90s and today, it went maybe from 1.8 in Sweden to 2.2, a little bit of an increase. In the US, starting off much higher to begin with, it went from like 3.7 to 4.8. And it actually increases even more if you look at a broader time horizon. So it’s just a really important thing to understand: like, why is that? And we can go back to, well, is it because the Swedes are just a lot more similarly skilled between each other? Because that would have to be the reason. Or is there something else? It turns out it’s mostly something else, and that has to do with collective bargaining. And this is also a really important aspect of where people don’t fully also appreciate one really interesting and important fact, which is that in the United States, when we ask, “Is your job covered by union contract?” that question is almost the same as asking, “Are you a union member?” And of course, union membership in the US, maybe in the private sector, having something like, you know, 35% back in the ‘50s, is today like 6%. And so barely anyone overall is covered in the private sector by a union contract.But here’s the interesting thing: if you went to France and asked what share of the workforce are union members overall, it’s like 10%. But 98% of jobs are covered by a union contract, right? Because what you have is sectoral bargaining. And this is a key thing which I talk about in the book. Sectoral bargaining was something that the US never really had. We basically had organizing and negotiating between the union and the employer at a company-by-company, sometimes store-by-store or factory-by-factory level, versus in a lot of our peer economies, what happens is workers and their representatives bargain with the employer and their representative at a sectoral level and at a national setting.Krugman: Basically, sectoral level means that instead of getting a wage agreement with XYZ contractors, you got a wage agreement with the whole construction industry. And so even workers who are not members of unions, even workers who work at companies that have hardly any union members get the benefit of the negotiation. And so, Sweden’s an interesting case where they actually have high union membership.Dube: Yeah. And Nordic countries generally, partly because of the way unions help provide some additional benefits, including unemployment benefits—that makes it more rewarding to actually join a union. But their coverage rate is even higher. And in countries like France or Austria, the coverage rates are substantially higher. So as a result, we have seen wage inequality not rise as much in a lot of other countries. And in Sweden, it’s actually been particularly low, and they’ve actually been able to retain it. And so that is a really important contrast.So one of the things that I talk about in the book is that we can’t get to sectoral bargaining at the national level without a substantial change in labor law. And look, the reality is that past attempts at changing and reforming labor law have not fared well. But the good news is that we can actually get to pay standards at the industry or sector level state-by-state. And what’s even more interesting is we actually have started to see some of this already, and this really leans on a model that actually now comes from a different continent: Australia. Australia has basically a national-level setting of wage floors by industries and, within industries, by different types of jobs. And that’s done not through collective bargaining—they have collective bargaining on top of that—but this is basically a sector-wide floor that’s set. And again, Australia has lower wage inequality, substantially lower than the United States.So, I talk about what the U.S. might look like if we had states do something similar. And like I said, I started to write this book in 2021. I actually had put out a survey proposal back in 2019. But in the last five years, we have a number of states that have started to implement some of this. For example, Minnesota has a sector-wide board that has representatives from workers and employers and the government to set pay in the nursing home sector. We have California that has a healthcare-wide minimum wage. Even more recently in the state of Washington we have a childcare sector board that just in the coming months will be issuing a set of wage floors in that sector. So we’re starting to see experimentation like this. And that’s important because if we’re trying to rebuild wages, not just at the very bottom that the minimum wage can really hit, but also those towards the middle, especially in the childcare or healthcare sectors, these kinds of jobs, you can actually raise pay there through these sectoral initiatives.And I’m very excited to see more being done along these lines, especially because, you know, I don’t know what can be done in Washington, DC right now. But we don’t have to necessarily wait around for a better day to come in DC. We can actually start doing some of this now, more or less.Krugman: So, it’s like the minimum wage is where half the states can do a lot on this broader issue of a more equal and better wage structure, even if things are totally stymied in Washington.Dube: That’s right. And that’s one of the nice things about federalism in the U.S., that we do actually experiment at the state level. And in the best cases, some of the better experiments actually get adopted. It could also be that some not-so-great experiments are done and get adopted. But that’s the nature of democracy.Krugman: Yeah. One of the areas where you really did a lot of the research and it was revelatory, but also, in a weird way, something where I found a lot of my sort of lefty friends not willing to believe it, was about wages post-COVID. So, let’s talk about that for a second. What happened?Dube: So, around 2021 and 2022, of course I looked at wages like any labor economist. I started to look around and find something that was puzzling because, as we’ve known for a long time, wages have been rising faster at the top than the middle and the bottom. And this is the growing wage inequality story. But it was looking like wages right after COVID, when we were reopening, a lot of people didn’t have jobs, especially in the hospitality sector—we’d sort of shut down part of the economy.So if in January 2020 someone said, “We are going to shut down some parts of the economy for a while, especially with low-wage workers, and then we’re going to reopen,” it’s like—here’s your quiz. If I could have given my class this question, like, “What do you think? What’s your prediction about what will happen to wages for low-wage workers?” I would have said wages would probably fall due to lower demand. And instead, it looked like wages were rising more at the bottom. And so this is what David Autor—my coauthor on this along with Annie McGrew—and I called The Unexpected Compression, meaning the compression of wages, reducing inequality—which is exactly what happened in the aftermath of the reopening after COVID, and led to a surprising amount of wage growth at the bottom. And it reduced maybe a quarter to a third of the increase in wage inequality that had occurred between 1980 and 2019.And so this was really very, very striking. And we asked, well, why? And the reason is because we had a very tight labor market. There were a lot of job openings chasing workers and, as a result, it increased workers’ leverage. And it’s not just that there was more demand for workers—that’s true—but we also saw people leaving jobs. So we had quits from particularly low-paid jobs. This goes back to the issue of different companies with different pay policies: well, companies that were actually going for a low-wage strategy found it harder to hold on to those workers, and wages actually then rose more there. And this is the increasing of intensification of competition in the labor market that actually really helped boost wages.In many ways, this was like: if we want the market to actually work well for workers, you need the market to be relatively tight. And in writing the book, what I’ve found was that, it just turns out between 1980 and 2019—up to just before the pandemic—there were about seven years of a tight labor market. We used to spend a lot more time with tight labor markets in the postwar era before 1980 than we did since. And this turns out to be another important part of that equation of: what did it take to have broad-based wage growth? Those seven years—if I just, like, snap my fingers and just erase those like some evil genius villain, what would happen? Well, if I went to the top of the pay distribution, it would make very little impact; the average wage growth would fall from 1.1 to 1%. Not much change. At the bottom, it would go from already a small 0.3% average real wage growth to zero. So the entirety of the wage growth at the bottom between 1980 and 2019 happened in a handful of years that was basically close to full employment: the late 1990s and the late 2010s. Under Trump I, those years also saw significant compression.And this is why the post-pandemic period was a really important one. But it’s also very messy because, as we know, this was also a time of a large increase in inflation, a chunk of which was, by the way, global in nature. But nonetheless, people were very reasonably unhappy about it. So it makes for a difficult thing to extract the signal from noise. And this is why in the book, I really highlight also why even these other periods in US history were so important in actually raising wages, highlighting really the critical pillar that full employment plays if we are trying to rebuild the wage standard.Krugman: Okay. What do you see happening now? My comment sections are full of, “Oh, it’s a K-shaped economy —the top is rising, the bottom is falling.” And people really refuse to admit that the compression ever happened. But also there are all these fears about AI. Everybody wants to know what AI is going to do, and nobody can honestly say that they know. But do you have any views on where we’re going right now?Dube: Yeah. So the easiest part of that to answer is just to start with wages. The good news is that much of the compression that we saw has remained. The bad news is that the last year and a half has seen some take-back. Basically we have seen lower wage growth at the very bottom. The particularly bad news is, of course, from this year, when higher inflation has erased, as of now, pretty much the entirety of the real wage growth since Donald Trump took office. And so, that’s really bad. That’s not just at the bottom, but just generally. And so I think wages are not doing great right now and that part is largely just an unforced error of where we are today with having raised inflation, literally having caused a supply shock—inflation purely out of discretion, right?But yeah, the other part—and this is the longer part and harder to say—is what we see not within pay, not wage inequality. Wage inequality has been an important part of inequality overall in the last 50 years. But wealth and the division between capital and labor. And looking into the future, that’s where my worries lie: where are we going? And I guess, the worrisome part of me thinks that, broadly, there are two possible ways that the current AI structure can go. My modal view is probably that I think it’s going to lead to moderate productivity gains. And how well that translates into wage growth partly depends on what we do in our other policy and institutional choices. But I think it can potentially be a source of possible wage growth.The other—and these are two very polar cases—well, this is going to be the singularity. I tend to be skeptical of that view of an artificial general intelligence that really just dramatically transforms the world as we know it. It’s possible—anything is possible—but the other possibility is that actually there’s a bubble and then it bursts, and that leads to a downturn. And that downturn could be harmful. So, there are all of these possibilities and I, of course, don’t know which it might be. But there are risks on both ends where what I do know—and this is what I sort of talk a little bit about in the book—is that, again, it goes back to the word “choices.” I don’t think we need to think about what AI does as something that just happens to us. We can choose to have institutions and a governance structure that can regulate that.You know what’s interesting, going back to Sweden, I was talking to folks in the labor movement there, and they, of course, have contractual language that requires negotiations over technology, and that includes AI. Where that goes is unclear at this time—it’s still early days—but that’s the kind of thing that we need to think about. So imagine having sectoral boards in the health care sector that, among other things, also sort of has regulatory language around how AI is used and how it can affect the workforce. So we need to think creatively, of course at the national level, but even more locally if necessary, about what that governance looks like, and understanding that this is part of the choice that we can make and not simply, you know, take the technology as just a force of nature that we just have to live with.Krugman: Okay. So, choices. We can actually shape our future. Probably won’t, but can. Anyway, thanks so much for talking to me. And I’m sure we’ll want to come back in a couple of years and see how all of this played out.Dube: Sounds great. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Power and Geopolitics After Trump 18.06.2026 21min

  TranscriptHi everyone. Instead of a regular post today, I’m going to put up a video. There are a number of reasons why I feel like doing that instead of the usual. One of them is that this is a dry run for a talk that I will be giving virtually later today.There’s a conference on the economics of digital transformation taking place in Croatia, although I’ll be doing it remotely. And they have asked me to talk about global power, geoeconomics, and Europe. Those are all themes that I’ve been thinking about quite a lot. And today’s miniature talk is an opportunity to try talking through those themes.And the way I want to structure it is as what has changed, at least in the way that we all now understand the world, since, well, basically since Donald Trump returned to power. That’s an American-centric point of view, if you like, but it’s kind of a natural bracket.And of course, everything really has changed, mostly not for the better, under Trump. And it has, as it turns out, big implications for Europe as well. So let me just try to get into that. Start by talking about the world as it seemed to be at the beginning of 2025.There were, and still are, three great economic superpowers in the world: China, the United States, and the European Union, in that order. If we measure GDP in 2024 at purchasing power parity, which is basically just adjusting for differences in national price levels, you had China with a GDP of something like $37 trillion, the United States with something like 29 trillion and the EU with something like 28 trillion. That last bit may be a bit of a surprise — maybe all of it is a surprise to some people — but yes, in terms of the actual amount of stuff it produces the Chinese economy is now substantially bigger than the US economy. And the European economy is almost the same size as the US economy. If you think that Europe is backward and poor and helplessly dependent, it’s not. It is an economic superpower. And in fact, by this measure, Europe has basically maintained this position of being about comparable to the United States for a long time. This is a whole other topic that I’ve been writing about and will continue to write about in the future. In that world, basically, two things were really kind of striking. One is that the United States seemed to perceive itself as being a dominant power, even though China was bigger and even though Europe was about the same size, and Europe acted as if it seemed to perceive itself as not being in the same league, as being not a superpower at all. All of that may be changing, and events are part of the reason, so let’s talk about the events. Now, the most obvious: the United States just lost a war. Just lost it bigly, as Trump used to say. It’s an astonishing story. We went up against Iran, which was definitely not a major military power or a major economic power, a sort of middle-ranked power, if that, and utterly failed to achieve our war goals.In the process, we inflicted a lot of damage on the world economy and depleted our stocks of high-tech weapons that will take years to replace. Altogether, immense damage was inflicted on Iran, but Iran has clearly emerged stronger. The United States has emerged humiliated. The attempts by Trump and minions to pretend that it was a victory don’t help. They only make the United States look not just humiliated but delusional. So that’s a big deal. It has large implications for US power and influence going forward as well. To explain those implications, it’s helpful to talk about one of the other things that really dramatically changed with Trump coming back into office, which was trade policy.The United States began really seriously trying to throw its weight around. Liberation Day, the tariffs on everybody, basically trying to pressure all of the world into giving us various kinds of concessions. Give us what we want or we won’t let you sell in our market and everybody needs to sell in our market.Okay, what we learned from now well over a year of trade war is that U.S. power in that dimension is substantially less than certainly than Trump appeared to believe it was. And just in general, trade, leverage and trade negotiations, leverage in trade disputes has less to do with market access than a lot of people assumed and more to do with supply chains, with getting stuff that you use in your economy, means of production, not in the sense of capital, but intermediate inputs or just inputs in general. The nation that has more ability to strangle its rivals by cutting off supply chains is the one that has the upper hand.So it turns out, and we had already learned this from the trade stuff, that China with its dominant position in rare earths and some other crucial industrial materials actually had a stronger hand than the United States. Yes, we have a big market, but loss of a market can be offset to some extent by domestic stimulus, domestic support programs. Not having crucial industrial materials is not so easy to make up for. So we learned that the power in international trade disputes in a fundamental sense reflects power over supply, not power over demand, which is something economists have always tried to say. The point of trade is not to sell. The point of trade is to get stuff. You sell as a way to pay for things that you get from other countries. But now we have it demonstrated very obviously in real life. So that in itself meant that we’ve had a blow to the perception of US power. It turns out the US market is not almighty; access to the US market is not anything like as powerful a tool as we thought and Chinese strangleholds over key inputs are much more important.And then of course we’ve seen that even more graphically demonstrated by war with Iran and it turns out that Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz was a really huge empowering point, and it was the kind of thing that the United States really didn’t think about, and certainly the Trump administration didn’t think about. And it shows the true rules of global economic power, because largely Iran was able to win this war through economic power rather than strictly military action, the rules of economic power are not what a lot of people thought they were. Who benefits from that? Well, obviously China. What we’ve seen now is that in terms of a global power competition, China has demonstrated that they have substantial power over supply chains. They’ve also demonstrated that they can weather a cutoff of oil pretty well. And global power is a zero-sum game. So the United States, by weakening itself, by showing that we don’t have the ability to impose our will militarily, we don’t even have the ability to keep international shipping routes open, has emerged as just a much less formidable player, which means that China by comparison looks better. Add to that the fact that the United States has been erratic and unreliable. Our current leadership just doesn’t understand that a reputation for doing what you promised, honoring your agreements, is itself a source of power, and we have done an enormous amount to undermine that. Not news to anybody. Trump looks much weaker. America looks much weaker. To a certain extent, China is the beneficiary of all that, at least in terms of power. Now, of course, life is not all about power. And in the end, you don’t run a country to maximize global power. Maybe the Chinese do. I’m not sure about that. But in any case, it’s not a zero-sum game in terms of living. But in terms of power, it is a zero-sum game. And the United States share of that power, however you measure it, is clearly down as a result of the war. Europe is a little bit interesting here. Europe played essentially no role in any of this. Europe wasn’t involved, obviously, in the war. Europe didn’t do very much at all except to suffer. Still, one thing that is kind of important is that Europe — at least to some degree, not really through emergency responses but just through the general way that the Hormuz shock played out — Europe demonstrated or some European countries demonstrated that they can be much more independent of global hydrocarbon resources than they have been. Europe is not a major oil producing area. It has some, but not a lot. It’s not a major gas producing area anymore. It’s essentially a very resource poor economy relative to the size of its GDP, relative to its population. But it is an economy that increasingly relies on renewable energy. And those countries that have gone especially far in relying on renewables weathered this really well. That’s the lesson of Spain’s ability to ride through this with very little rise in electricity costs compared with some other countries. Italy, which has very little in the way of renewables and is very heavily reliant on natural gas for electricity generation, Italy did much worse.But Spain has given an illustration of how the renewable energy revolution — solar plus batteries is what really runs Spain now — has made Europe more independent and can make it more independent still in a world economy where control of natural resources used to be really critical and it’s becoming increasingly less critical.So that’s actually a point in Europe’s favor. That’s one piece Another piece of this is that Europe has always, in my lifetime, literally, and from a bit before my lifetime, Europe has always been far less of a global power player than you would expect given its sheer economic weight.Now that’s partly because Europe doesn’t exist as a political entity. though it’s more of one than it used to be; the common market has gradually turned into something more than that and Europe is able in some important ways to operate as one and is finding ad hoc ways of cooperating more. But it was always in a secondary position very much — or tertiary position given the rise of China — largely because the United States in addition to having a big economy was overwhelmingly the dominant military force.Now until just the other day there was never a question that the United States would use its military force against Europe; but Europe depended on the United States. Europe’s defense, its security, all depended on the United States. Okay, now where are we? The United States is quite simply just less credible as a security guarantor, not just because of crazy stuff where we threaten Denmark over Greenland, and not just because we’re erratic all the time, but because we’ve just demonstrated that our military capability is a lot less than we thought it was. The United States could not batter Iran into doing what it wanted. It could not keep the Strait of Hormuz open. So U.S. military preeminence is a lot less intimidating, also a lot less reassuring if you thought you had America on your good side than it used to be. And on the other hand the prospect that Europe might be able to defend itself, achieve its own security without the United States, looks a lot stronger than it did not very long ago. And that’s not just because of the war in Iran but also because of the war in Ukraine. Now, there are many, many horrifying things that have happened under Trump. One of the ones that is particularly horrifying to some of us is the abandonment of Ukraine, the clear tilt towards siding with Putin in his attempt to destroy a democratic nation. The United States basically stopped giving any aid to Ukraine at all. almost as soon as Trump took office. U.S. aid of all kinds, but especially, of course, military aid, is all gone. But a funny thing has happened. Ukraine is still standing. If anything, the war seems to be tilting in its direction. Now, that reflects partly the fact that Europe did step up. particularly with economic aid: Europe has filled the gap, pretty much, that the United States left so the flow of money to Ukraine continues.But it’s also because war has changed. To the extent that the United States appeared to be essential it wasn’t just the money — we knew that Europe could come up with some money — but it appeared that what would what How could Ukraine defend itself without U.S. weapons?Well, it turns out that in this age of drone warfare that Ukraine can mostly defend itself. Actually, what they can’t really stop is Russian missiles that destroy civilian targets, which is horrifying, but it doesn’t appear to really work in terms of altering the military balance. And Ukraine has developed its own suite of weapons, and quite aside from the fact that Ukraine is hanging in there, this says that one of the sources of perceived US superpower status— super duper power? versus Europe is a mere superpower? — was that, well, we had the weapons, that we had the technology, that even if Europe could come up with the money, they needed U.S. weapons to be effective, as did Ukraine. And if the United States cut off the flow of weapons, what could you do? You really could not stand without all of those sophisticated, high-tech weapons that only the United States knew how to produce. Well, those weapons are kind of looking obsolete right now. Not entirely, but we just saw Iran do a lot of damage with drones that the United States didn’t appear prepared to stop. And the United States, with all of its super-duper weapons, was not able to suppress them.We had the spectacle of million-dollar patriots shooting down $30,000 Shaheds. This is not a good look. And Ukraine has become a major arms producer ,has become in many ways the expert in this new age of drone warfare. The Europeans are picking up some of that, and there’s a lot of new cooperation on weapons with Ukraine.But maybe the most important thing to say is that, well, that special U.S. advantage, because we had the weapons and no one else did, it’s not much of an advantage now that it appears that those weapons are largely obsolete. Not totally, of course. The Ukrainians would really love to get more Patriot missiles to stop some of those Russian missiles that are destroying 11th century churches and so on. But the balance has shifted in a way that means that the United States is not indispensable at any level. We’re not indispensable financially, and we’re not even indispensable militarily. It’s like we have the world’s best cavalry in an age of machine guns. What good does that do? Okay the Chinese presumably have immense capacity. Chinese dominance of manufacturing means that on almost any dimension China is the super super duper power, they’re really way out in front. But there’s much more parity between between Europe and the United States than there was because the United States doesn’t really have economic dominance and we don’t have military dominance anymore. We dominated an age of warfare that now appears to be behind us. So where does Europe stand here?In a rational world, the rise of China and the coordinated, concerted, efforts of the United States and Europe to deal with that rise would be the central story of geopolitics in the year 2026. Unfortunately, things are not rational. And so we have a belligerent, erratic United States with Europe largely on its own.But Europe being on its own is not nearly as impossible to imagine as it used to be. This is a world that has tilted towards China. That’s probably the biggest story. But it is also, in effect, tilted towards Europe because it’s tilted away from us here in the United States. Take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Lunch Money with Paul Krugman and Heather Cox Richardson 18.06.2026 40min

  Thank you Michael Scarmack, Scotland Explained, Oakbridges.ca, Kim G, Cathy Stein, and many others for tuning into my live video with Heather Cox Richardson! Join me for my next live video in the app. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Talking With Azeem Azhar 13.06.2026 47min

  I last spoke with Azeem, the proprietor of Exponential View, 18 months ago — ancient history on this subject. So we revisited the state of AI. .TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Azeem Azhar(recorded 6/12/26)Paul Krugman: Hi everyone. Paul Krugman back on my usual schedule of recording interviews. And today I’m talking with Azeem Azhar, who I spoke to in January 2025, basically centuries ago in AI time. And with AI on everybody’s mind, I thought it would be good to revisit. I should say Azeem is an independent researcher and founder of Exponential View, which is one of the top tech Substacks out there.So hi, welcome to another conversation.Azeem Azhar: Yeah, thank you, Paul. And it has been eighteen months, also known as one and a half centuries in AI time since we spoke.Krugman: Yeah. Let me ask sort of the dumbest question: what is this thing called AI? How does it do what it does? I mean, even skeptics have to admit that it’s really impressive how it’s sort of leapt over all of the previous barriers. How is this happening?Azhar: You know, I think we’re still figuring it out. I think of AI ultimately as a machine that does certain things, and it’s been built by passing first millions, then billions, then tens of billions, hundreds of billions of trillions of words of human output through a neural network to give it some sense of how humans have thought about the world. And because it operates at dimensions well beyond the form of space and time, it seems to be able to find relationships between quite complex concepts. And I think we’ve all had that experience, whether we’ve been using Chat GPT or Claude over the last two or three years, that it seems to be able to recognize things that are quite deeply related that don’t immediately spring to mind.And in the last year and a half or so, the labs have started to train the AI models not just on words in books, but actually on tasks, like, “what is the set of things that you do to write a piece of code that does something?” “What is a set of things you do to use a piece of software in an enterprise?” And they’ve tried to train those models on those particular tasks. Essentially it’s aping what we do, and they use various mathematical tools like reinforcement learning where the model notionally gets a reward. Of course it’s not a reward the way you and I think of it because it’s a machine.Paul Krugman: Right.Azhar: And so that’s what it is. It’s sort of reflecting back, but also I think discovering some really deep relationships in the world that we might not spot, you know, prima facie as humans.Paul Krugman: Brad Delong calls it “a vast stew of linear algebra,” which makes some sense to me because I think that Pagerank with Google was the last thing I actually understood. And that’s the eigenvector with the largest eigenvalue. Not that anybody needs to know that, but this is like a million times bigger, right?Azhar: That’s basically it. Yeah.Krugman: But it’s sort of not what artificial intelligence was supposed to be, right?Azhar: No, not at all. I mean, I sometimes go back and look at the TV series of the seventies that I grew up with as a child, and they’ll always have an AI in the spaceship. Space 1999 had an AI you could talk to. And it was very precise, it was very clipped, and it did things and got things right. And there was a sense that you could trust it. But you’d never think to say, as I sometimes do now, you know, “Find me five analogies to help make this point.” I use it as a brainstorming partner, or I give it tracts of my book, the book that I’m writing, and say, you know, “How would Paul Krugman criticize this argument?” And I get suggestions that I then work through by hand? I don’t think we really imagined it would look like that.Krugman: Yeah. In sci-fi it would talk in a monotone and would be relentlessly logical. And in fact these models are unpredictable, they’re sometimes temperamental, they’re not reliable. That’s probably one of the big problems. It’s not at all what we imagined.Azhar: It’s not at all and this point about reliability is so complex. A couple of months back, one of the versions of Anthropic’s Claude came out and I found it so sycophantic that it became unhelpful because I like these things to help me on hard problems and to challenge me. So I switched back to Chat GPT, which has always been a little bit less friendly. And what’s going on there, Paul, is that because we don’t really have a good theory about how to build these. They are developed almost like in a petri dish and nudged in particular directions so they take the shape that we expect them to take. And to use an economist term, they improve non-monotonically with every release. So you’ll see the latest release of an Anthropic model, and there are maybe twenty or thirty public benchmarks that they’re measured against, like how well they summarize text and how well they write software code. And the next version of the model won’t necessarily be better at everything than the previous version, because you lose something in order to get it. And that’s the complexity that the labs are wrestling with.Krugman: Wow. Okay. Second naive question. I don’t think I’m a Luddite. I’ve always been happy to adopt technologies, but maybe I’m incurious on some of these things. I tend to pick up things like mathematical techniques, as needed, because I see something that could be useful. Now, I’m using NotebookLM to extract tables from PDFs, that sort of thing. But what should I be doing? I have friends who are using Claude a lot, but I can’t quite figure out what particularly agentic AI should be doing for me.Azhar: You know, I’m really sympathetic to that because I have the same issue. These tools have been developed by software developers in a really particular part of the world, which is Silicon Valley, where the culture really revolves around the art of the programmer. And so if you have a programmer’s day and you think in coding terms and you have programming workflows, it becomes really obvious what you do with a really advanced AI tool. I do a lot of research, some of it qualitative, some of it quantitative, and in such a world, those workflows don’t match the way that I think through problems. And so the way that I get around this is that I do look at things on Twitter or X as it’s called because people are sharing tips. And I often just ask the models, you know, “What could I do with you given that I’m trying to do this thing? I’m trying to solve this problem.” And it will come back and give me a suggestion.And I have had some success with agents. So I have an agent called R. Mini Arnold. So R is a play Isaac Asimov’s robots. They’re all called R. Arnold is after the good Terminator in Terminator 2, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who protects humanity. And R. Mini Arnold is available on my WhatsApp and it’s available on email.Krugman: Okay.Azhar: And it has access to a whole set of resources. It can browse the web, it can access LinkedIn, it can access Twitter, it can look at my library of PDFs of research that I’ve downloaded. And I can throw tasks to it a little bit like I would say a pretty decent but slightly temperamental graduate student. So sometimes it just disappears for six or seven hours at a time. And one of the differences between using an agent like that and using Claude is that R. Mini Arnold has a lot of my life’s context. It knows the music I like, it knows the book I’m working on, it knows the investments I’m making, it knows the essays I’m doing, it’s got the calendar of speeches that I’m about to give. And so when it goes off and does a task, it tries to figure out what in my world is this going to be relevant to and where can I draw threads from? And when it works, it is really sublime and it does feel a little bit like science fiction.But I would say it’s incredibly brittle. I mean there’s breaks every four or five days.A specific example was, I was thinking about the Paul David’s research about why electrification took the time it took. And I wanted to understand what were the determinations of determinants of that thirty-five year lag from Pearl Street generation to, you know, productivity growth. What could the levers be? And so I threw that into R. Mini Arnold and it set up a team of sub agents which had personalities of key economists and was able to go off and do research the way the AIs do, but also research on all the academic papers that I have downloaded in the past.I have access to JSTOR, I’m allowed to download a hundred PDFs a month. It can look at all of those and start to compile an answer in a way that perhaps a Chat GPT can’t. And it knows the context of my book and it knows the context of the essay I wrote. So what then comes back is something a little bit more structured that I can then play with. It’s a marginal improvement on doing this on Chat GPT. I’m sure you could probably figure out how to do it. But it’s quick. I use it on my iPhone. I often do this when I’m walking through the airport and I want to solve this and have this result when I’m sitting on the plane. I’ll fire that query out and it goes back and goes out and sorts that out for me.Krugman: Okay, I guess I’m getting it. But obviously you and I are not typical. The people who are using AI the most are going to be middle managers, business people, etc. And I find myself thinking about what I think of as the homemade pasta problem.Azhar: Mm.Krugman: You’re probably too young for this, but there was a time when I when young and we were using stone axes for computing, and there was a big fad of making your own pasta. Little pasta machines were everywhere. And then at a certain point there was kind of a collective, “What the hell are we doing? You know, store bought pasta is actually better. The Italians don’t do this.” And I have to think that for most tasks, the range of agents can’t be that wide. But why wouldn’t they sell that kind of thing off-the-shelf, as it were?Azhar: Yeah, well I think it’s different for an independent person or a small business or a middle manager in a big company. I would imagine that you will start to see people selling specific agents that solve your marketing problem. If you have a barber’s shop and you’ve got four chairs and maybe 30 people a day coming through. Right now what you do is, you go to ChatGPT and you help it write your collateral for your website. That feels like it’s an interim step to somebody delivering the actual finished product. Why haven’t we seen it? I think we haven’t seen it yet because the terrain is still big enough.Beyond Anthropic and OpenAI, there’s a lot of other companies building agents that are these end-to-end workflows for businesses. They still believe that the prize for them is to build the generic platform that is the tool for all tools. Because if you get that right, you have a much, much bigger business than if you’re just a vertical application. And I think we’re only a year or two into these entrepreneurs building such businesses. I think as some of them succeed and some fail, the ones that are not able to succeed in the general space will start to verticalize, which is what we saw in the advent of the internet. We saw it in software as well.But I think within a big company it’s a different set of questions because you have far fewer degrees of freedom as a marketing manager in a large company than you do if you own your own barbershop. You have all these rules, you have all these other teams you have to interface with, you are held to the priorities and the plans of the company as a whole. And in that instance, I think, it’s much harder to see how you use AI to really change the way you work.Krugman: Yeah, I mean, again we’re talking about ancient history here, but you know, everybody still uses Excel, even though it has always been horrible. But the constraints of corporate life mean that everybody has to use Excel. So that means maybe we’ll see quite a lot less coding a few years down the pike because the people will just be able to purchase whatever it is they need. I don’t know.Azhar: I think there’s a balance. You hear people proselytizing heavily, saying, “I think this technology is going to be impressive and have a significant impact.” But when people pitch this, they forget that there are other actors in the market who might respond to what’s going on. Right now, if you’re a large company, you want to be building as much as you can because what you can buy isn’t right for the market. If you think about Henry Ford putting together the Highland Park plant, he couldn’t go to a supply chain and buy what he needed because nobody was thinking in those terms. I think we are slightly at that stage for large corporates now. Whether we’ll be there in five years, I don’t know.The question we have to consider is where the value will reside: between having your own capabilities to design software for your processes, or handing that over to another company designing software for a hundred businesses like yours. Historically, it has made more sense to hand it over to another company, but the cost curves may have changed sufficiently that you’d rather have the nuance and control to do whatever ‘vibe coding’ becomes in 2030.Krugman: I know with healthcare software, organizations like the VA that built their own have done much better than the ones who tried to buy it from Microsoft. So yeah, it might be a story that makes sense. And actually, since we’re talking about going for the models versus something much more specific, how do you think about the Chinese versus the big US AI firms?Azhar: I’ve just spent eight days in China and I was really fortunate. I got to speak to developers and engineers and management from about a dozen of the Chinese labs. In many cases they hosted us in their offices. The main thing the Chinese companies say about the US firms, is that Claude code is brilliant and Claude is the best model that is out there and they really couldn’t get enough of it. The term is, they’re Claude-pilled. They talk about the constraints on getting access to computational power but just in a way that’s a fact of life. I mean there’s no sort of commentary on it other than it’s hard. They have to figure out how to get around that and how to build a culture of efficiency when you don’t have as much [computational power] and I think they have built a culture of efficiency really, really well. I think it’s going to help them over the longer term. They don’t really talk about competition with US labs the way the US talks about competition with China. But they do see themselves competing with each other.And as you know, that’s what the Chinese economy is. It’s mayors in different cities who almost act as venture capitalists who compete tooth and nail with each other to become the electric vehicle hub or the solar hub or the AI hub of the nation. And what I would say is, the models are really, really capable. They’re very efficient, which is why they’re so cheap to run, which makes them very competitive for a whole range of tasks. But at the margin, it’s instructive to note that everyone was using Claude for coding as opposed to the cheaper Chinese version.Krugman: That’s interesting. So you can imagine a future where a lot of businesses are actually using these less comprehensive but much cheaper models. I think what I’m gathering from you and from other people is that a lot of entrepreneurs in the US are still dreaming of the uber-model that solves all problems but that probably is not going the way it all goes. That in the end we’re gonna end up with a lot of specialized models, but also the uber-models will still have a role.Azhar: Yeah, it never made sense to me that you’d have a single model that would do everything because if the single model is going to solve the Riemann hypothesis, it’s gonna require a lot of resources. And if all you need to do is get it to root a bill to the finance department, it seems a bit silly to ask Einstein to come and do that for you. We’ve had segmentation of markets for a long time and it’s like with airlines. There’s a reason why not every seat on an airline is first class. Some passengers don’t want it, don’t need it, won’t want to pay for it. So I do think that the ecology looks like a whole array of much, much cheaper models that are serving by volume lots of corporate needs, and then having more sophisticated, complex models for the more complex tasks. I think you’re already starting to see this.I don’t see it, by the way, as a shock to the industry. I just think this is what happens as an industry matures. You know, you start with one size fits all, then you start to segment your customer needs and you start to serve them in the most profitable way you possibly can. And that just feels to me like the way that the markets have matured.Krugman:Okay. Let’s move to more macro considerations. People have been worrying about a bubble. A lot of us still remember the nineties quite vividly and think about all of that. But you just aren’t seeing the bubble. You wanna talk about that?Azhar: I remember what it was like in the nineties. I lived through that one and also the housing bubble, which frankly was far, far worse and much more terrifying. I have a really simple mantra here, which is that honest customer revenues tend to be the engine that gets you through this, right? You know, what caused the problems with the US railroads in the 1870s and 1880s? It was that the revenues didn’t materialize because the tracks were being laid in places where there were no towns. That was a problem. The same was true in the dot-com era. My team and I realized last year that it’s very hard to get good quality data on how much was actually being spent by American businesses and consumers on AI. So we’ve spent several months building systems and gathering data to give a deduplicated view of what that number is. And just to give you a sneak preview, is $150 billion per annum, annualized at the end of May 2026, and about 90 billion dollars in the previous 12 months, from May ‘25 to May ‘26. So you can see it’s growing, and those are deduplicated numbers.So if you spend a dollar with OpenAI, and they have to pay Microsoft 60 cents to run the servers, we only count that as a dollar. We don’t count it as, you know, $1.60. It’s a much faster revenue growth rate than mobile or the internet. It’s also a small number because the US is a $32 trillion economy. And I think the thing is that at that level of spend, you are able to roughly cover the depreciation on the enormous capital expenditures that have gone into AI just this past year. But next year or the year after, you have to double your revenues again and again in order to cover these increasing commitments.The thing that often pricks a bubble is when financing starts to get a bit smelly. That was clearly the case in the global financial crisis, where synthetic collateralized obligations were magnifying the risk on subprime mortgages—it was all “smelly finance.” In the dot-com bubble, the dot-coms themselves didn’t really have much smell about them. There was a lot of disbelief, but the telecoms clearly had issues with their internal revenue generation.So the other thing that we look at is how bad, poor, or strong or robust is the funding quality. And that funding quality measure is definitely getting worse. It’s worse now than it was nine months ago. But it doesn’t seem from the numbers to be at the level that it has been historically when these things have imploded. Nor does it seem to be the type of exposure that is really systemic, which is what we saw in the global financial crisis. There are companies like Oracle and Coreweave whose debt looks very risky, and it’s harder and harder for them perhaps to raise money, although Oracle just did. But it doesn’t feel like it’s systemic.You know, when the the global financial crisis popped, no one knew who was in trouble, whereas now you’d be able to isolate it with a single company or a single firm. So at the moment we feel that this is still a demand-led boom, that funding quality has definitely gotten worse, but not so bad that I would say that there is an imminent problem on the horizon.Krugman: So at this point, you’re saying that roughly speaking, final demand for this is about half a percent of GDP. What share are AI-related stocks in market value? It has to be substantially larger than that.Azhar: They’re about forty percent of the S&P 500 right now.Krugman: That’s a huge mismatch. Revenues are not the same as profits, but you’re talking about what is still a relatively small business relative to this immense economy, yet it dominates the financial markets. That would be at least a possible source of alarm.Azhar: Let’s dig into that, because a stock price is a reflection of the expected future value aggregated across the market. Forty percent feels high, but if you look at the measure of earnings, these companies actually have a much higher proportion of earnings and earnings growth.If you look at the US stock market in 1900, after the railway calamities of the mid-to-late 19th century, railroad stocks were sixty percent of the capitalization of the US market. We had worked our way through the busts by that point. There’s a fantastic piece of academic work by an American finance professor named Bessenbinder. He looked at the stock returns of 23,000 US stocks from the 1900s through 2022. Those returns are highly concentrated. About two-thirds are concentrated in roughly 30 companies. Those companies are oil, electricity, or car companies—the general-purpose technologies at the start of the 20th century—or they are the IT companies like Apple and Nvidia. The only exceptions were Walmart, a couple of healthcare businesses like Pfizer, and JP Morgan.Historically, you get this concentration of a number of winners when you have a new general-purpose technology, and that is showing up today. I don’t feel we’re overly concentrated from the perspective of risk, and the price does not feel totally out of whack compared to where we were during the dot-com era.Krugman: One last devil’s advocate question. I keep thinking of the California gold rush. If you had looked at the revenue and spending on gold-rush-related businesses as a whole, it probably looked solid. But the trouble is it wasn’t the gold; it was the picks, shovels, blue jeans, women and whiskey that were the revenue streams. Is that a fair question to ask about AI right now?Azhar: It’s a great question to ask. The question is what determines that $150 billion annualized demand? We see that just under 30% of the S&P 500 have pointed to a generative AI project with a quantifiable result in their earnings calls. They are under pressure to say they do this, so maybe that’s what’s going on. But when I talk to executives, like 30 finance businesses in New York, they all plan to spend more next year, even though not a single one could point to even a 10 basis point improvement in their business from the investments made so far.Krugman: Right.Azhar: When we break out that $90 billion, $60 billion of it is in the US. That’s a lot of money for a single company, but spread across thousands of firms, it’s still at the experimental stage. We should consider whether these executives are learning by doing. The messages I get vary from those having success in the tens of millions who want to reach hundreds of millions, to those finding it harder but persisting. We’re slightly beyond pure picks and shovels, but in Paul David’s work, it took 50% of American companies getting electrified before the productivity rise. We’re a long way from that.Krugman: Headlines flashed about a KPMG study with case studies on the usefulness of AI that turned out to be AI hallucinations. It’s a wonderful thing.Azhar: It is brilliant. One thing that is quite challenging is that the market has talked a lot about bottlenecks. We saw this with railroads when the US couldn’t make enough steel. There are these bottlenecks, and there’s a lot of emphasis on power and getting electricity to the system.There’s more demand than supply capacity for AI right now, but there’s a question of whether there’s enough capital. We may see another few trillion dollars of intention from tech companies to build infrastructure to 2030, which starts to rival the new issuance of the US Treasury at $2 trillion a year. I’m wondering if this capital constraint is going to be an issue or if the market knows how to clear it.Krugman: Ordinarily, we’d expect to see that in prices. Real interest rates are well off their pre-COVID lows. They are higher now, but still substantially lower than at the peak of the nineties tech boom, when they were around four percent. They’re more like two now.It’s surprising, given the AI boom and massive budget deficits, that rates aren’t even higher. Whether this is an actual constraint, Nvidia is not the US Treasury. They need risk-tolerant capital. The possibility that these firms may not be able to raise enough money is something we need to think about.Azhar: Yeah. On that Nvidia point, I saw that credit default swaps on five-year Nvidia bonds—the cost of insurance against default—are currently lower than US Treasuries.Krugman: I saw that, and it strikes me as completely crazy. If you think the US government is not reliable, you shouldn’t be investing in chip stocks; you should be investing in canned goods for your bomb shelter. But anyway.Azhar: Are you telling me that markets aren’t perfectly rational, Paul?Krugman: Good heavens, I can’t say that; they’d take away my economist card. We’re recording this on SpaceX Day, and I’ve been wondering if there are limited pools of capital for cutting-edge investments. I wonder whether Elon Musk is diverting capital that AI might need. A whole lot of meme money is pouring into SpaceX right now. Is that something I should be thinking about? I mean, he’s got what everybody tells me is a crud AI product in Grok, and yet…Azeem: Musk showed his willingness to adapt; his AI product is now being subsidiarized using his capacity to serve customers like Anthropic. He has an incredible following, but people who have worked with him say his ability to relentlessly focus and optimize sets him apart. His first-principles thinking has brought down the cost of space launches faster than anyone in history. He pushes the rate of learning aggressively. For all the challenges and his mercurial behavior elsewhere, that’s generally a good thing because technology has brought down the cost of inputs significantly.We’re going to be much further ahead in space than we would have been if SpaceX had not been successful. It raises questions about how to govern what used to be a commons, but there is a definite benefit from coming down that learning curve so quickly.Krugman: That’s fair. The one time I looked at Musk’s activities and thought he was really onto something was when I realized he diagnosed that the cost of space launches is really the rocket, not the fuel, and recovering it makes all the difference. Being able to make it happen is a real productivity thing.This is all moving so fast that we don’t have time for the technical productivity issues we had in the past. It’s feeling like a Solow moment where people say, “I see the technology everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” Do you want to talk about that?Azhar: It comes up all the time. I wonder if we need things to happen more quickly than we used to. We aren’t seeing it in the numbers yet. Erik Brynjolfsson at Stanford says he thinks it is showing up in the aggregate numbers. How quickly should we expect a technology like this to show up? At $90 billion a year, that’s not much of US GDP. These are early stages where companies are learning. The first $100 million you might spend on AI is about learning, and we’re in that mistake-making phase.The model Paul David and William Devine talked about in electricity is helpful. In the first phases, you’re retrofitting your capital stock and processes with the new technology. It’s not until you depreciate existing capital and change processes—like Ford did at Highland Park—that you see productivity benefits. To put numbers to that, what would we expect to see in the Ford equivalent of Highland Park in terms of output?Krugman: Yeah.Azhar: I thought we might see what happens to revenues per employee in an AI-native firm. Across high-end companies like McKinsey, it’s about $400,000. For Meta or Google, it’s about two to two and a half million dollars. In AI-native firms like Mercor, that number is closer to seven million dollars per employee. For Anthropic, it’s close to ten million. You can measure the enormous commercial productivity of a single employee if a firm is AI-native. We’re talking about a handful of firms, but we can pick up the shape of what’s possible for the productivity of a single employee. It may be hard, it may take time, but it’s possible.Krugman: What would those numbers look like per dollar of invested capital? One worry is that this is an enormously capital-intensive business that replaces labor. The oil refineries of New Jersey have enormous revenue per employee because there are no workers, just monstrous capital installations. Is that a factor?Azhar: Anthropic has raised in the tens of billions rather than hundreds of billions and had a profitable quarter ahead of schedule. What we don’t know is how much of that capital goes into developing the next model versus monetizing previous generations. Their IPO in the next six to nine months will tell us.Chinese companies are using much less capital to build models that are nearly as good. So I think the harder part of your question is that if every model that OpenAI or Anthropic costs ten times as much to deploy and develop, but lasts only a couple of years before it’s defunct because of competition, what needs to be true for that to be sustainable for more than a year or two? To me, that is a really tricky question as well.Krugman: You’ve cited intermediate measures. Rather than revenue, we look at generated lines of code, which has exploded, versus actual usable applications, which hasn’t. Does that tell us anything?Azhar: Lines of code is an odd measure. We’ve made it much cheaper to write code, so less determined people are writing it now. It’s unsurprising the increase hasn’t been met by proportional productivity. Data suggests we’re getting more high-quality code, but also a lot of useless waste. This isn’t the first time a useful input in the economy generated waste. Think of a barrel of oil: we count the whole value in GDP, but two-thirds is thrown away as waste heat. Only one-third is useful energy. Sloppy lines of code are a similar form of waste we’ve been happy to tolerate in other sectors for a century.Krugman: A weird analogy is when widespread word processing came in. Books started getting longer. It was so easy for authors to turn out hundreds of pages. What might have been a two-volume series became five.Azhar: On that front, we’re at an enlightenment moment. In 18th-century France, the battle was over who gets to write and express their story. Men and women produced remarkable works with quill pens that encapsulated a world.Krugman: Right.Azhar: Is it worse that we allow for more expression? We are worse off when that connects to an algorithmic recommendation system that drives constant slop at us. But we aren’t inevitably worse off because we’re giving access to many more people.In reducing costs of access, we might find amazing people. In breaking down silos of knowledge, we might find connections—perhaps something in battery chemistry that is useful in cardiology. We don’t know because we’ve never been able to get those experts to talk. I look at each opportunity discreetly.Krugman: There is a potential book here: The Upside of Slop. This is an unrecognizable scene from eighteen months ago. Wow.Azhar: We could get ChatGPT to write it.Krugman: I started my career writing papers longhand on yellow legal pads. Amazing change.Azhar: I still write everything with a fountain pen. I’m writing my new book longhand and most of my research is too. The computer is turned off because AI does all the boring stuff like PowerPoint and emails, giving me time to apply my brain to things I want to think about.I’d be happy to continue this conversation in a few months. Thank you for inviting me.Krugman: Thanks so much. Take care. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  A Gesture of Contempt 08.06.2026 3min

  A quick video, thankfully not from Midtown ManhattanHi there. Paul Krugman with a very quick update. I haven’t done a regular post today because I’m jet-lagged out of my mind, but I just wanted to weigh in on something that will be happening a few minutes after I record this. Which is that a significant piece of Midtown Manhattan — the area surrounding Madison Square Garden — is about to be closed to all pedestrians.This is because of the Knicks game which is in Madison Square Garden. And Donald Trump is attending the Knicks game. Which means that the game entry itself is going to require enormously strict security. People are forbidden from bringing any kind of bag in there. It means that what should be an exciting joyous occasion is going to become quite hellish with long lines and who knows what else.But what really may not be obvious to many people — you might not know if you’re not a New Yorker — is that Madison Square Garden sits on top of Penn Station.That’s a story in itself, but there it is. And Penn Station is the busiest transit hub in America. It is where 600,000 or so people pass through on their way to and from New York by way of the Long Island Railroad and New Jersey Transit. I’ve spent a lot of my life waiting for trains at Penn Station. And it’s completely insane to ruin people’s day like that. You could say, well, what else are you going to do if you’re going to have to provide security for the President of the United States? And the answer is, Why does he have to go to this thing? The simple way to make several hundred thousand people’s lives noticeably better, at least for today, would be to just not go to the damn game. He can watch it on TV. He can go have a cage match in the ripped up White House lawn, if he likes.It’s not such a small thing. It shows a kind of contempt for ordinary people and a kind of self-aggrandizement — I want this so I’m going to make other people’s lives miserable just to indulge my whim — that is part and parcel of everything else that’s going on. It’s a small thing but my god I would actually have had a problem if I went into my office today because my office is not that far from Penn Station. It’s not in the banned zone but it’s going to be nightmares all around.All right, just another message that the people in charge do not care about people like you. Get full access to Paul Krugman at paulkrugman.substack.com/subscribe