Kitty went off 🔥🔥🔥 please have her on again. She's brilliant, understands the big picture, and how the economy is rigged against workers. Rarely do people explain economics so eloquently. Love it.
Kitty and Jon got hostile and tried to unjustifiably vilify and pin down Jason right off the bat. They forced Jason into the most awkward and defensive position for no reason. They constantly interrupted him but somehow it was wrong when Jason interrupted Kitty. They tried to straw-man Jason as if he was a crazy corporatist, they put words in his mouth, and they were really rude. They didn't even disagree with Jason most the time but they really wanted to take it there. Really irritating from Kitty and Jon. They're just looking for sound bite "slap back" and when he didn't play ball they got aggressive. Disappointing.
@@airliners321 It's sad that people don't understand that a lot of modern "economists" are a doctor prescribing leeches for the poor, and modern medicine for the very rich. They are the scientists who tell us that cigarettes are good for us. Jon is 100% correct on this.
Team Kitty coming off the top rope and gently and sweetly putting Jason to sleep with the down pillow over the face. He didn’t even know what was happening. 😊
Kitty was incredible. That is how you lead! She handled condescension with grace and stood her ground, with facts and data to back her up! Loved her! I want to hear her more!
You could tell she was ready to jump in with coherent arguments against stupid stuff, but acted restrained. I've been in meetings like that and it sucks. I will say this is the first youtube vid about economics that I've watched all the way through.
She was also a MASTER at communicating with someone bent on being condescending and missing the point of what they said. It was ssooooooo telling when he accused her of acting like she was introducing a new point into the conversation when she was simply trying to ask him directly to get clarification on his views
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer. you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
Although not in Harvard, as a professor, I think it is a bad idea to be condescending to someone questioning my point. Someone who disagrees with me is not stupid. It is enough to say: that's incorrect, and move on to explain what is the correct answer to the question at hand. Fantastic work Jon! You're probably my favorite human on this planet.
I think the condescension from Jason comes from him not being able to take off his academic hat for long enough to realize that John and Kitty were talking about inflation colloquially and not as the literal rate of change in goods and services. When you get passed that it’s clear they all agree in general about when things to get expensive for Americans, the government should help.
I think he did that at the end because he was frustrated and felt like they weren't listening to what he was saying. Which I understand, the discussion was mostly I think X is the problem and Jason would say yeah I agree X is bad and a problem but X isn't the cause of inflation.
@@Gronmin yes! Thats it! But that mostly comes from everyone at the table navigating in and out of the academic hyper specific definition of inflation and the layman “things are costing more” colloquial definition of inflation. All of Jason’s pushback centers around inflation as a rate of change. Government intervention and spending can help subsidize costs for specific goods and services or critical needs like housing, but government spending doesn’t lower inflation in the academic sense.
@@bigboma uh no, there isn't even really a specific academic definition for inflation that differs from the public one. If that were the case they wouldn't have agreed that wage increases cause inflation and that excess spending causes inflation among other points that they agreed with Jason on.
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer. you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
The guy wasn't being condescending he just disagreed with Jon's points. Jon isn't an expert on this subject, so he shouldn't be getting so angry when he is disagreed with. Guess he's used to having his a$$ kissed
@@jmully9525 I genuinely hope you keep watching this podcast so you can contrast this behavior with other expert guests who disagree with Jon. I guarantee you none of them tell him he should take "(insert subject)" 101 class.
@@timchamberlain5858 but maybe Jon should actually "take a class" on this subject? I respect your opinion but I found this very hard to listen to. I think Jon was emotional and defensive. Watch the nonzero podcast with Robert wright to see how to disagree calmly and respectfully. Jon needs to decide if he wants to debate or have a conversation, they are distinct and he framed this as the latter, but behaved like it is the former. This isn't the Thanksgiving table with your drunk relatives! Also the 25 yr old woman was the condescending one, talking like a 4th grade teacher to her students. The way she talked was in that robotic- faux -"nice"- know it all style , literally the most condescending thing I've seen in a while. Sorry I guess the podcasts I listen to are just more polite and that's what I'm used to.
Someone who always says " you don't understand " repetitively instead of saying " let me explain what I mean" is not really a good teacher. If you're a condescending passive-agressive high on your horse teacher, you're a nightmare teacher and forgive me, a bit of a dick. Jon, respect.
Teachers who just want their opinions parroted back to them were always the most frustrating and boring classes to take cause you can never have a single original thought. It's like a history class where all the teacher cares about is you memorizing the exact date and location of a battle but not what the battle was actually about; except this kinda teacher attitude is worse cause now you have to memorize (quite often) horrible opinions
@@pairuptech So then Paul Krugman got the Nobel for not being a dick? 'Condescending teacher' is an oxymoron IMO. Most people's ears turn off when being an object of condescension.
Loved how Jon pushed back whenever Jason was being so condescending. Jason needs to get out of his Ivory Tower. The Fed gave bailouts to corporations and austerity measures to everyone else. Very spicy episode! 🌶️
Jason does not have the ability to question parameters that he was taught not to question Primarily, he and his cohort was never taught to consider durability/fragility, which really is the kryptonite when considering issues such as supply chains or any other good that might see bottlenecks due to queuing theory.
Team Kitty!!! I adore her calm demeanor, her eloquence, her up to date facts and ideas and how she kept reaching across the aisle to Jason to have common ground. Kitty should be the Ivy League professor.
LMAO. Kitty gets an uninterrupted 6 minute feel good rant at 25:55. Jason starts to explain his view and Kitty and John immediately interrupt him. Kitty gets double the amount of speaking time to Jason. Get out of your leftist bubble.
The main thing that crossed my mind during this conversation was that Jon is getting spoke to exactly like I've been spoken to throughout my life as a woman.... Aside from that, I think it's unfair for Jason to disregard the role of corporations in this cost of living crisis. So many people want to point to workers or point or politicians to place blame, but when companies are seeing record profits and CEOs are getting record bonuses, you have to question whether or not they are taking advantage of this inflationary period to increase prices. I can't believe that it's the worker's fault for wanting to buy groceries that the cost of eggs has increased by almost 60% in the last year...
The thing is there is no question here - as Jon pointed out and has highlighted before, the CEOs have been openly bragging on their earnings calls about artificially high price rises because of the smoke screen of the inflation environment caused by the over stimulus and genuine supply chain issues.
Exactly. If corporations were only raising prices to offset input costs their profit margins would not have gone up to their highest points in history. That only happens if corporations were taking advantage and gouging consumers.
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer. you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
Jason seems to go out of his way to be insulting and to demand time in the broadcast while Kitty seems to go out of her way to recognize his contributions to the conversations and make her own points. Please ask her back.
LMAO. Kitty gets an uninterrupted 6 minute feel good rant at 25:55. Jason starts to explain his view and Kitty and John immediately interrupt him. Kitty gets double the amount of speaking time to Jason. Get out of your leftist bubble.
@@CMBell1985 Who is engaged and curious? Oh, you mean how Jon interrupts Jason every time he tries to explain Jon's question. Yeah, Jon was quite engaged in trying to push his own political arguments.
@@MTG113 I can't, my cats and dogs might get eaten by immigrants. You're the one in the bubble (that's Trump's defense for all of the horrible shit he does). It's the same things kindergartners do. I know you are but what am I. And some how , his sheep buy it. I mean, he said news was fake and millions believed him without seeing a shred of evidence. They now watch actual fake news on Fox and there is plenty of evidence to prove that. But they don't care. They just want someone to say something they agree with. Truth doesn't matter.
Very illuminating. Kitty was AWESOME and honest. Jason was inconsistent and shifted and shuffled when caught in a lie; the fact that he's teaching so dishonestly is scary. Jon, you definitely got it!
so often I try to defend experts and explain how people who actually devote themselves to a particular subject tend to be pretty humble about what they know and don't know and have tremendous respect and appreciation for the nuance and difficulty of constructing accurate narratives from complicated and contradictory data. And then I listen to an economist, and despair.
I blame their reliance on rational choice models. If you can make two completely contradictory points with the same data, you're dealing with opinions, not empirical, natural science. Overemphasizing the few times models reflect reality gives them false confidence and a desire to explain why models don't work in most cases.
@@4daptability991 Not every field is a science, nor does every field have to be, but it's especially frustrating when people in a field think it's a science when it isn't.
@@distracted-dadnot every "field" has to be considered a science, but economics is very much a science. The problem is oversimplifying something that is incredibly complex and being lazy in how they apply scientific principles.
I paused it at 15 minutes in to turn it off, but checked the comments first to see if anyone was picking up on it. Jason is coming right out of the gates blaming helping working people as the cause for inflation. Sure, most of the trillions went to corporations, but sure, it was the working people. I probably won’t hit play again on this episode though. I have no time to listen to someone with a selective focus like himself that is clueless.
Kitty has a composure I cannot comprehend... Amazing woman!!! I have always had issues with people like Jason. Everything that comes out of his mouth sees from his POV w/o Ill intent and yet goes down like a dry pill w/o water...
Man, I wish these podcasts were longer. I learn so much from the back and forth and could listen for hours. I'd love to see some guests go into the history of our tax code, how we got to where we are, what significant changes have been made and their impact, and what changes people are reccomending to "fix" it and the data behind those ideas
I don't care if non essentials prices go up due to inflation, or supply and demand issues, but there should be some controls on prices of essentials (food, utilities, housing). To control prices you simply set a cap on the percentage increase above cost allowed on those things. This way businesses and corporations will still have a profit, but will prevent price gouging. Personally I would prefer that on all things, but that would never happen. Kitty definitely understands the situation, Jason has his head up his economicass.
I'm enjoying your guests. That they can push your buttons and you respond with something resembling dignity is something I admire. Also, your producer chats are fun.
Make this podcast like Arrested Development and BRING KITTY BACK. I genuinely felt represented by John and Kitty who were explaining how corporations have so much power in the economy. I'm a full-time caregiver and for someone to blame inflation on my need for eggs is so condescending and gross. I am working to stay alive, thank you John and Kitty for giving me some form of hope.
This is one of the absolute best podcasts for longform discussions on complex topics with intelligent guests that come with intellectual honesty, fact-based arguments, and high quality details in their synopsis. Thanks for putting together such a fantastic program!
Ordinarily I would agree with you but Josh had the intellectual honesty of George Santos. There are several times where he was caught in a corner where his own economic model disagreed with what he was saying so he redrew the framework to make himself sound correct. It was dirty and he smiled every time he did it.
@@youruniquehandle2 I see your point about Josh. He was certainly playing the shell game at several points in the discussion and did exactly what you are saying he did. I do think that it's possible he honestly represented what he thinks. He happens to be wrong and needs to think more about it. The proof that people like him are wrong about many of their conclusions is in the fact that he is a person that our leaders listen to for understanding the economy and has produced many deleterious effects in the real world from his incorrect conclusions and yet, continues to labor under the delusion that he is right, resorting to gaslighting that he actually saw the truth, but you are too stupid to see what he sees or remember what he said exactly. I struggle to know whether he is wrong, knows it, and in turn lies to make things work with his current understanding, or he is wrong, doesn't know it, and in turn gives bad advice to people in the seats of power. I tend to think that his position at Harvard compels him to always assert his perception that he was right about everything by revising his original assertions and postures like he always had the right understanding and then resorts to gaslighting. I also have noticed that professors almost never admit to being wrong even when they know that they are. And certainly that effect is increased when that professor is in economics and teaching at Harvard. In the end, you are probably correct to point out his dishonesty, but I still think this show regularly has intellectually honest guests on to have great discussions.
I love that Jon is bringing on experts like this. I think macroeconomics aren’t actually that difficult for your average person to understand, they just need more exposure to it. This long form discussion between two different schools of thought is fantastic. Thanks Jon, keep it up!
Jason went into this podcast thinking he was going to be Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. Jon and Kitty came into this expecting to have a conversation. Dude was defensive, pulling debate tactics, and trying to counter-argue every single statement to win points instead of actually listening and talking in good faith.
Being a loan originator, I watch what the economy does daily. It surprises me that we as consumers keep having to bear corporate greed. During the pandemic, the supply chain was impacted which resulted in higher prices due to less supply, but we did not see this shift when the supply chain opened back up. Corporations kept the prices high and we felt it as consumers.The Fed then stepped in and increased the Fed Funds rate which further increased the cost of buying things with credit. I have personally seen people’s overall credit debt go up and by increasing the rates so much it halted people from purchasing due to the monthly payment. The Fed always seems to be behind the curve which results in wild swings. So, I think it is a two fold issue between Fed policy and corporate greed.
I've been saying that corporate greed has been driving inflation for a while. They are making record profits. Agreed about supply chain issues but they've been resolved for a long time and prices never came down. Company's are in business to make m I money as they should. Greed is something else.
@staceyurner3953 The fed didn't have much of a role in bringing this inflation down. Their constraints on the market affected homebuilding, which only makes our situation worse. This inflation was more due to supply chain issues and greed. The assistance for COVID was only a portion..
Maybe the fed needs to be run by poorer people! All these Fed chairs and board members are almost certainly multi-millionaires, bankers, who have zero idea of how the leverage loan rates have on people living month to month and desperate for pay day to come. They simply don’t get it, so it’s just numbers and inputs from ivory tower dicks like Jason Furman that sway their policy.
So, here’s the thing- let’s say that Jason is right. Let’s say that the main cause of inflation is people having more money in their pockets in one fell swoop but when corporations make huge profits, it doesn’t add to inflation . That’s even more scary to me. What that tells me is that our ENTIRE economic system is set up to fail most of the population and totally skewed towards building huge wealth gaps. The reaction to this skewed system can’t be- “well, we can’t help people when they need it the most”, it has to be that we have to work on a system that can withstand these black swan events in a way that doesn’t continuously crush most of the population. Our economic system cannot be so divorced from our values. If you’re telling me that the best a system can do is not help most people when they literally need it the most, then what’s the solution, if not to create a different system.
Hi, whenever I hear the argument that injecting funds into the demand side increases inflation, but doing it to the supply side does not; I translate that into people will spend the money you give them, but corporations will hoard it. Which makes sense, but then I would argue that if the money is just going to be hoarded it should be spent somewhere else. I have not read a response to such an argument. Maybe we just need a way to buffer the demand side injection?
That’s a really fantastic point. Even if he’s totally right (which I highly doubt, but hey I’m not an ivy league professor) that’s still an issue - maybe an even larger issue. I keep hearing about all the ways that “the rules of economics” mean poor people simply have to suffer and starve and die while corporate profits go up and up and up and I keep coming back to the idea that MONEY ISN’T REAL! We made it up! If the system isn’t working then maybe it’s time we change those rules.
I think that was a bit of a missed point in this interview. Jason is quite left leaning, and what you're describing is likely something he would have brought up. It felt like they wasted a lot of time painting Jason as some kind of corporate shill for explaining other nations recovered slower for reasons other than not giving their citizens as many stimulus checks.
What angers me about proponents of injecting money into the accounts of the biggest companies, is that the biggest companies are going to get the money regardless of who gets the money first: regular folks, or the big companies. The difference is that giving money to regular folks will allow them to live more comfortably than had they not got the money.
So much this. If what they say is true, you are admitting that the system is nit set up for the people. Which means we need some kind of regulation to change the system to make this set of rules work for the people it's supposed to. I'm also very tired of economist who talk like this guy and say all this stuff like it's a for sure equation and every time they do this mess they get a different result. Maybe, they don't know as much as they think they do, because they never add in the human element.
@@bridgit001 here’s his class: give your money to the rich, the rich deserve your money, workers are bad and stupid, the rich need more money: no matter what. People bad, greed good. That’s about it.
I am a CFP and attend economic presentations hosted by economists. Boy, I need to give myself a pep talk before I ask them a question, and after I ask the question, the pep talk typically goes like this. Before I Ask "You Not An Idiot. You Not An Idiot". After I Asked: " You Such An Idiot. Why Did You Ask That? You are Such An Idiot. No, You're Not An Idiot. He's Just A Jerk, A Smart Jerk But Still A Jerk. And You Need Ice Cream" So Sir John you held your ground beautifully; you are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.
Always love to see economists argue that capitalism cannot accommodate workers getting a better deal, but can always accommodate corporations getting a better deal. Sounds like we need a new economic system, Jason!
It feels like you have two guests here, both of whom understand economics... but one thinks the economy should be managed to benefit people, while the other thinks people should be managed to benefit the economy.
Nah, Jason ignores reality to manage the economy the way it SHOULD work in a perfectly efficient market (that doesn't exist), based purely on theory, while ignoring how actual economics works.🤦🤦
Symbiosis is defined as a close, prolonged association between two or more different biological species. This relationship can be symbiotic (mutualistic)
@@MichaelBerthelsen And this is why trickle-down economics keeps being tried, despite everyone knowing it doesn't work....economists keeping trying to fit the peg in the wrong hole without wanting to question themselves.
The most frustrating part was his own inconsistencies. "Inflation is driven by the interest we have to pay on debt from deficits" -> "the low corporate taxes that result in all this debt isn't a lever to modulate inflation. They have nothing to do with that." And the abhorrent condescension. I'd have ended things early.
I love this debate format, and I think I'd love it even more if it was paired with educational segments where we dive a little more into the foundational knowledge needed to really understand the points of disagreement -- I could really get behind a couple months exploring all the rabbit holes surrounding an important topic.
The economic crisis and downturn are all the signs of 2008 market crash 2.0, so my question is do I still save in the US dollar or is it okay to move all emergency and savings to precious metals??
In light of the ongoing global economic crisis, it is crucial for everyone to prioritize investing in diverse sources of income that are not reliant on the government. This includes exploring opportunities in stocks, gold, silver, and digital currencies. Despite the challenging economic situation, it remains a favorable time to consider these investments. Nevertheless, seeking guidance from an investment planner might be necessary if you desire a more assertive return.
Investing in gold is a reliable choice, and I plan to keep buying more to make up for my losses. While silver is also a good investment, my collectibles are not as similar. It's important to have clear investment goals and educate yourself on the type of investment that interests you. I work with a financial consultant regulated by the SEC, and started small, but eventually accumulated over $800,000.
Can you provide instructions on how to contact your advisor? I'm experiencing erosion of my funds due to inflation and looking for a more profitable investment strategy to make better use of them.
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Marisa Michelle Litwinsky’’ for about two years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
I appreciate this. After curiously searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
If you get the time, if you could discuss housing and what could be done to make it better in America. Rent costs are going up and it's harder to find a new home to rent or own because cost as well as supply. I feel like no one is building homes under 200k because there isn't enough profit for them. Building high value homes raises everyone tax rates around them too. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about so would like you and your team to dive into it like you did with inflation today. Also, thank you for all you do Jon. We love you!
There are cheaper homes but they just might not be where you want to be. In the higher demand areas NIMBY's usually want to restrict supply. Honestly , you want cheaper homes to rent and buy? Make it easier to build. How to make it easier to build? Oppose those who want to restrict development in their neighborhoods. Its usually older white boomers who bring up other things like "character" of their neighborhoods so they arent coming off as disgusting as they are.
I’m always frustrated to hear economists talk about people choosing to spend more or less. For a large portion of Americans our spending is paycheck to paycheck. What gets chosen is how much individual debt we have to go into to survive when inflation goes up and wages lag behind.
We’re not choosing to buy eggs at a higher price because we can afford to buy them at that price. We need to buy eggs to live and we will have to pay the price on the shelf
@@nathandavenport6830 Their argument is always that you don't need anything, everything is a want because the baseline to them is eating dirt and foraging for herbs. Except whose dirt and herbs will poor people eat if all the land is also a private commodity? Never any reckoning from these theorists about how much their models fail to capture the real world.
I have gotten away from pay check to pay check, but now the next set of challenges arise. Trying to save to buy a house while paying for medical bills. Paying the rent to be close to work or spend it on putting miles on my car. Deciding if I should have kids and immediately worrying about how expensive that is. Inflation of fuel food and housing affect these decisions and create instability and insecurity. It is so dehumanizing to call an economy hot or cold and to treat workers income as the thermostat.
I took a course in grad school about international food markets and policy and read a bunch of business reports, mckinsey consulting reports, etc, and it really showed me just how simple the economists' view of the world is. Every single time it just boiled down to "we suggest you do things that make money and cut costs everywhere you can" and "invest in the successful things and divest from the unsuccessful things." People like Kitty are doing great things in the field but I get the impression most economists are like Jason, boiling very complex systems down to "its very simple basic economics though!"
@@jayroger7612 consulting reports are not reflective of what economists think. If you can, read academic journal articles in economics. That is how economists think.
I'm sure I'm Dunning Kruger-ing the fuck out of myself here but was I the only one screaming at my radio that if deficits contribute to inflation and tax cuts for the rich contribute to deficits the you can't say that tax cuts don't contribute to inflation?
avg dummy here, your last sentence made me go momentarily crosseyed while my brain rebooted.. you've got a double negative going on and idk wtf you mean. tax cuts for the *wealthy* is diff than tax relief for middle and lower class households
I think Jason had some important points in there but I think my understanding was hampered by feeling like he feels like the “avg person” is both too incompetent to understand economic theory (so he doesn’t really breakdown and defend his point effectively) and his not addressing the fact that the pain avg citizens are experiencing is agnostic on whether the economy is doing well. He’s explaining how the economy rolls on a frictionless surface but I think his argument would have been bolstered by anchoring his argument in how it will effect regular people and how they are going to survive. These macro arguments all sound like they are suggesting that I, the hourly worker, need to be sacrificed so that the almighty abstract of the economy will flourish and bless the survivors
also that "economic theory" is fucking THEORY, and therefore malleable. if he's finding it hard to explain to people then perhaps the theory is getting over-complicated for purposes beyond what matters to 98% of people. removing corporate person-hood and disintegrating citizens united would probably help simplify these things significantly. big business should be disregarded in any areas HUMANS actually care about. nobody fucking cares about your "needs", ...Kroger(?) ...you're a grocery store chain! fucking act like it! bootstraps!
I get how economists can sound cold and detached when talking about fed policy but there's real human pain caused by being too lenient with inflation as well. And voters are indicating they really *really* hate inflation and are threatening to maybe re-elect a right wing authoritarian because of it. So I think it's necessary to take that big picture approach that tries to minimize total pain, and it seems to me like the Fed did a pretty good job considering the circumstances. For every person you could point to who is harmed by rising interest rates (or if we had hypothetically done less stimulus in 2021), you could just as easily point to another anecdote of a person harmed by excessive inflation. So their job is very macro and utilitarian, not personal because of the scope of the issue.
@@sergiominchey4429 Have seen more people complaining about the effects of how the Fed is dealing with the inflation, more than inflation itself. If wages had been stagnant for like decades, and all of a sudden there's a panic over inflation when wages finally catch up to the rate of inflation....then it is pretty clear the main driver of inflation cannot be wage growth. (unless talking about CEO wages, maybe, given how out of control those have been)
@Vaeldarg Consumer sentiment in the UMich survey hit its low point (lower than the great recession) in June 2022, which is also when inflation hit its high point. That year, prices were outpacing wage growth. At that point, the federal funds rate had only just begun rising to 1.68%. Consumer sentiment was much less bad once the fed funds rate was 5.33% and real wages were growing in 2023. But that said, now that we've put out the fire and real wages are growing again, I think consumer sentiment will improve when interest rates are lower. If you raise rates on auto loans, that stops people from buying so many cars and lets supply catch up, but they just perceive it as another source of cost increase. It's still better than letting the problem burn out of control, which I believe would have made economic sentiment worse than it currently is.
I might have missed it, but i think Jon's main point was the choices the government has been making since Reagan espoused "trickle down economics" have all been tailored to keep money in the pockets of rich people and corporations at the expense of regular folks. The Harvard professor insisted on talking only about inflation and didn't address the fact that constant reductions in corporate and the top 1% tax rates increase the deficit more than any monies given to workers. Jon seemed to be trying to make the point that it's about the choices made that increase the deficit. Choosing corporations over workers is what Jon was calling topsy turvy, and he's right. Trickle down has never worked, and it never will. Fiscal inequality is higher than ever and will only get worse in the future.
Please make a recurring guest lineup with these two. Honestly this is such a fascinating exchange of ideas and I so appreciated a discussion where people disagree pleasantly. EDIT: Okay I got to the part where Jon mentions he could do this every week. PLEASE YES.
Damn, Jason really wasn't capable of treating you with respect once you challenged his overall thesis that the only thing that could impact inflation/deflation is the fed lowering/raising rates.
Any other economist would be able to say that there are multiple inputs that affect inflation and deflation. The fed can do some things but the Fed is only a part of it. I think like in any profession there are ideologies and schools of thought that wax and wane. There is the old school (now) that opposes regulation and statist oriented input so they want to keep it on the lending level instead of more direct action. We can see that direct action works as part of an overall comprehensive way to make the economy nwork for the working population...but sigh there are still some economists vehemently opposed to that so they want to say that its really only the Fed that has impact.
Agreed. This was a little disappointing because Jason has been a pretty valuable guest in the past. I was surprised by his choice to condescend rather than listen. He got very defensive, and that solves nothing. And it was sort of annoying that Kitty had to soft shoe her questions posed to Jason at the end to get him to actually acknowledge her points.
If Jason were 1/8th as smart as he thinks he is. We would be on Mars already because he would have a more consequential degree than an economics degree.
My state had that Egg problem. They destroyed eggs to artificial supplies and jacked up prices. And recently we found out that apartment and home owners have been colluding with each other to price gouge the rent prices for profit via an app.
I listened to this yesterday and Jason was so condescending! Jon, you are the progressive voice of Gen X and I am inspired by your wit and genuine concern for your fellow humans!!!!
Do we get to count Jon as part of Gen X, or is he a late Boomer? (This also becomes a salient question about Harris and Walz, actually.). '65 is the usual (arbitrary) cut-off, but I guess I'd tend to argue that these very-late Boomers have more in common with Gen X than they do with the Boomer center.
Excellent episode as always. Since I have no social media, may I request here an episode on the USDA. They administer the costs from WIC to forest firefighting to now water reclamation all with a small budget. Water conservation affects 40 million people in the southwest but in Arizona Saudi companies are growing water thirsty alfalfa on leased lands to ship back to the middle east. It is lowering the entire surrounding water table and residents near these fields are paying thousands every few years to drill deeper with their own wells. Thanks and keep up the good work Jon!
Jason was so condescending to Jon which was bad enough, but I’d argue even more condescending to Kitty. Like the jab that she didn’t know how Econ 101 is taught? So damn rude. Don’t have him back, Jon. You don’t have to subject yourselves (or us for that matter) to that kind of ad hominem rhetoric.
Honestly he should have him back, because if you don’t have that devil’s advocate in the room, you won’t change someone’s opinion of what they believe to be true. Fact is just a conglomerate opinion of people confirming a belief
You can play “devil’s advocate” without being a condescending, misogynistic prick. I’m sure he’s not the only option out there and I too would advocate for not continuing to give men like him a platform.
If you noticed, Jason also supported taxes on corporations. He did it in such a pedantic and off putting way that everyone in the comments thinks he's Milton Friedman
I’m going to have to watch this again. And again. Because I’m by no means schooled in economics and this was a LESSON. But most important, Kitty is a BAS-ASS! I love that when it was her turn to talk and Jason tried to talk over her she said “EXCUSE ME!” and did not let him…one small example of her many BOSS moments. Get it woman!
Jon, here's your answer when an economist tells you “you don't understand.” Tell them “I understand the current dogma; it's just that I don't believe the current dogma is the best strategy, because the current dogma is biased to favor the interests of the wealthy and politically powerful.”
@@seandobbins2231 Right, this isn't the case here. That isn't what my comment, or the original I was replying to was about. That was a blanket statement that: whenever an economist tells you that you don't understand something, come back with this cute little quip to show how snarky and smart you are. It is absolutely possible for someone to simply not understand, and for an economist to tell them such.
Jason Furman sounds like a spoiled brat, reflecting the same stupidity of elitists blaming lower-earning people. Perhaps, people who did not need money, went and unnecessarily spent while others who actually needed it, were able to pay their bills. Bottom line: Rent and bills are still too high without wages matching. But maybe that is just my inflation expectation. If I just change my expectations, my bills will lower and wages increase. 🙄
@@thewhitewolf58yeah, those checks helped pay off some of my student loan debt. I didn’t go out and buy a PlayStation. Or blow it on a new iPhone. I used that money to dig myself out of debt. And because of it, I was able to save up money rather than focus on paying off loans and I actually had a decent savings account to put a down payment on a house. And without that house my wife and I wouldn’t have a little girls who’s almost a year old now. I have a family and a semi comfortable financial position 100% because of those stimulus checks.
Remember, he’s from Harvard. 🙄 Utilities need to come down. Monopolies are part of the problem. Also notice wages increased due to the worker shortage, and then corporations increased prices. 🤔
Jason has the same issue I see in a lot of extremely smart people: They end up dragging down discussions into reductive arguments about semantics, even if they largely agree with someone. What I heard out of him is that: We should expect corporations and executives to be bad actors who fight fiscal and economic balance -- therefore the "fastest and most efficient way" to fight inflation is for consumers and labor to look at upcoming inflation and "expect" to be fucked in the ass, so we need to be the adults in the room and bend over and take it ASAP to get things on track. Every. Time.
This was an immensely refreshing discussion on a topic I really wish was talked about more. More professors of economics need to have their beliefs challenged (I use the word "Beliefs" intentionally, because modern economics relies too heavily on assumptions and premises that don't hold up to criticism). I really hope you find a way to continue this discussion and bring on other voices (like Yanis Varoufakis)
I'm not going to pile on Jason too much, because it's not necessary to in this comment section. But I don't believe it's a coincidence that neither he nor Larry Summers had a meaningful answer to Jon challenging the thesis of 'no no no, rich people can't put their fingers on the scale of an economy to benefit themselves while hurting regular people. The economy is this mystic force that moves in mysterious ways that we barely understand.'
Example: a gallon of drinking water at Wakmart two years ago was 88¢. Today $1.38. Fuel prices are down, what is causing this increase? Walmart has reported the highest profits in the history of the company,a company that controls a massive percentage of working class consumer.
A lot of the inflation is very much tied to the expectations of inflation, but undoubtedly there were a lot of companies that used the cover of inflation to bleed their customers.
I appreciate the high level discussion of economic and inflation theory, but what I generally appreciate most about you, John, is you (and Kitty some this time) bring it back to how it has effected the American people. I live in Iowa, a state which, only a few of decades ago, provided 7% of the World's food (probably because of the corn thing, but still impressive). Here in Iowa we have seen the price of a gallon of milk and a pound of butter DOUBLE since Covid. I have no clue what has happened to you coastal folks, but it cannot be good. We need the working class to take Washington back from the Oligarchy and make it work for school teachers and railroad workers. While I'll take Mrs. Harris' "Washinton as usual" over either of the crazy boys, people need to realize she's not the real long-term answer. Its high time we had a 3rd political party in this country that carefully considers "government by the people, of the people, FOR the people".
I think the condescension from Jason comes from him not being able to take off his academic hat for long enough to realize that John and Kitty were talking about inflation colloquially and not as the literal rate of change in goods and services. When you get passed that it’s clear they all agree in general about when things to get expensive for Americans, the government should help.
You missed the point too, @patmullen7597. Furman came off as condescending because Jon and Kitty made him seem like the bad guy. In reality, they were practically in perfect agreement. You should watch it again and see if Furman ever says anything in defense of corporations. They are all for higher corporate taxes and all think the people would have lower costs if the Fed lowered interest rates earlier. The conflict is over whether inflation is relevant. It's not, no matter how much Jon and Kitty want to talk about inflation. Inflation is only important to Jon's agenda because it just happened and Jon wants to be topical. No problem with that, but it results in the host getting confused about what the discussion should be about.
Wow, this was an excellent discussion! I really appreciated Jon’s questions and Kitty’s explanations, in particular. I think Jason also had some good points, but there was a level of condescension there that rubbed me the wrong way. There is a serious issue with corporate greed that has a very real impact on us regular people and jobs and everything else. There is a reason that just saying that the economy is doing great doesn’t resonate with people’s back accounts. Though a lot of that has to do with the benchmarks we rate the economy on and the foolish idea that growth must be made at all costs.
what's particular painful about this is the extent and timing of those interest rate raises could have been eased and would have shocked the labor market less (based on the Fed's own research) and the pressure from the markets to reduce worker mobility is stronger than the desire to prevent people from unnecessarily losing their jobs.
Call me stupid, but I’m honestly glad I learned jack shit from my economics teacher when I was in high school. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a trump supporter now
Your summary at the end is perfect. Economists talk about their numbers all the time and make proclamations about the health of the broader economy but are disconnected from the micro level realities of everyday people. Stock market growth is great and all, but it means nothing to the 40% of Americans not invested in the stock market. A stock growing 10% a year means nothing to the person laid off to help that stock grow 10% that year. Economists cheer at higher unemployment and its effect on interest rates but lose sight of how many people are devastated by being laid off. Like you have said many times, its this prevalence of the corporate economy over the labor one that is killing this country, in addition to the general short termism of prioritizing quarterly earnings growth about all else.
This has been a fantastic educational session about economics and also about economists. I think the conversations need to distinguish between how the economic model is functioning and whether the economic model is "fair and just" and how to improve the economic model. The final comments reflect this concern and perhaps suggests that more conversations about the economic model of the U.S. could be improved to spread more of the wealth among the wealth creators by taking some of the wealth from the the "takers" as I think Mariana Mazucatto has described the major problems of the U.S. economy. Congratulations to Jon and his fantastic team (sorry for forgetting your names) for these conversations. An hour a week spent listening to these conversations enriches us tremendously!
Increase the tax rate on all earnings over 10 million to 90%. We had this in the 40. & 50s and that was when we built the middle class. It’s the only way capitalism works.
Then everyone who makes over this amount leaves the country or simply stops making more because it is pointless and total taxes the country gets decreases dramatically.
@@jcost808 really? Look at what's happening in the UK. CNN did an article on it recently, well over a hundred thousand millionaires have left. Why would you keep your company headquartered in a country that is going to take all your money? Look at California and the exodus to Texas
@@jcost808But what makes it an empty threat? Corporations have already mostly moved their labor outside of the country where they can make more money, and virtual/teleworking has taken off to where many execs don't even have to be in the country to run the corporation.
John: The problem with talking to economists is the constant condescension by acting like you couldnt possibly understand it like I do. Jason: You don't understand..... Jason: You don't understand... Jason: You don't even understand the basics.
Yup, economists need to quit playing like they have some special insight. It's not a real social science and the foundation it rests on is sand. There's no there-there.
Agreed - the professor’s condescension was disgusting. There is a way to disagree and explain your rationale - instead he clung to his paradigm and couldn’t even consider there was a chance there were valid factors he hadn’t considered. When he tried to say how well off we were doing in this economy I wanted to vomit…. I’m an RN and my income lagged significantly behind inflation. my personal purchasing ability has decreased markedly over the last 5 years. I don’t buy the groceries I once did, go out far less often, and almost never travel. Whatever statistics you want to point to, I am not alone in the feeling that my income has not kept pace with increased pricing. I was better off in 2008. Therefore this ‘economic strength’ isn’t the type of strength that has benefitted me at all. If the economy is as strong as they say it is, then there must be other factors affecting American’s financial position and that is all that Jon and Kitty were trying to bring to the conversation.
I have a friend that majored in economics and is generally on the left but adopted this same condescending attitude when talking about economics as people tend to take what they are taught as dogma even if it isn't actually proven out. Thankfully in his case over a couple of years he started to come back around and we are on the same page again but it was weird to me that we saw eye to eye, he got his degree, there was a rift and eventually we got back to seeing eye to eye, but I didn't change much. Kind of makes the degree seem rather worthless ;)
“The economy” can be measured and interpreted in several different ways. Overall economic activity, growth and power is indisputably up - but mostly as measured by corporate earnings, profits, turnover and the sum of that shows huge increases over the past 10 years. But crucially, as Kitty pointed out, just counting the numbers does not tell the story of the “Everyman” - not least because the higher interest rates hit everyday people right at the margins, so while prices and wages may have risen approximately equally, a huge proportion of those pay increases have disappeared in loan and mortgage interest payments. Thus everyone feels worse off, despite having more earnings than 8, 10 years ago. And of course, rich people, like the senior bankers who make the Fed rate decisions, all of them millionaires several times over or more, don’t see that in their day to day lives, so they don’t understand it.
2 місяці тому
@@tn_onyoutube8436 I certainly do not disagree with you but it's more than interest rates. Over the last few years I watched the prices on rock bottom basic products and services almost double. Things like store brand cheese or garbage pickup. The wages went up a bit but nowhere near as much as those items. And since most people work in retail, healthcare, or food service, the increases are more painful because we can't just skip the basics like we can luxuries. Yes, I totally agree with your last sentence. Having to settle for a designer brand when you really wanted a bespoke item is simply not the same as having to choose between eating or paying the rent.
Why is it that each time I hear a professor or expert say the word "economics" it is systematically followed by the word "101"? Surely if you want to accurately model the world you have to go beyond the "basic" theory, right?
Economists often are confused about their profession. They are more like archeologists, commenting on local politics from a Roman perspective. They study the past, they can't predict future behavior.
It’s like every time conservatives go off about trans people. “It’s basic biology.” And I’m like “yeah it is. But everything I learned in the collegiate level bio courses I took said that it’s actually far more nuanced then what you learn in basic bio, and that basic course are often dumbed down so much they aren’t really that accurate at all”
Yeah it's an argument I often use online. If someone says "basic economics" or "101". Saying "and yeah then you get advanced economics and learn it is not that simple."
One thing I'd like to see discussed more is how inflation wouldn't be this big a problem if wages were keeping up with it. That's the biggest issue with this current wave of inflation IMO
The idea that it's normal to "need a mortgage" to own a home needs to die. It wasn't this way in the past and it doesn't have to be in the future. The whole industry around pushing loans as a normal means to make purchases for the middle class needs strong regulation. It's not in the public good to price everything out of reach and then force an entire populace to pay even MORE money, in the form of interest, just to attain basic needs like transportation and a space to live.
In LM Montgomery's novel "Jane of Lantern Hill", Jane, age 11, goes to spend the summer with the father she hasn't seen since infancy. It's the early 20th century. Her dad says, "well, let's go buy a house". They check out a few places, find the one they like, plop down $40, and bam, the house is theirs. Granted it's Canada and not the US but I don't think the two countries' housing markets were likely very different. Accounting for general inflation and converting currencies, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 in today's US dollars. So yeah, I think you're making a very good point.
There's no force involved. People reverse mortgage their home to pay for medical expenses that cannot save them from dying of old age. This leaves nothing for their family to inherit. Intergenerational wealth transfer is how people used to get homes without a mortgage.
I find it fascinating that we are essentially slaves to something (money) we created. Give a trillion to billionaires. Fine Give a trillion to people earning $25k a year. Armageddon.
It's just slaves to survival, as usual. Unless you are using money for something else, which is just choice. I'm not sure how we could have 9 million people in a city with just barter or hunter/gathering otherwise.
It was really good to have two very different macro perspectives which acknowledged where they overlapped with each other. The only sour note would be the condescension levelled at John, which a first time can be unconcious but the repeated instances speak to a personality. I know of colleagues like that (college lecturer) so its not unsurprising. I am pleased with hearing the different perspectives and it was worthwhile having the discussion.
Kudos for having a spectrum of views and opinions represented and given time for a healthy back and forth. So many outlets are just pure one sided echo chambers these days, so bravo for not being that.
So he said that giving money to people made them more willing to pay more for things, so prices went up, but it's NOT greed, he said... kinda glad he's not my professor
Kitty went off 🔥🔥🔥 please have her on again. She's brilliant, understands the big picture, and how the economy is rigged against workers. Rarely do people explain economics so eloquently. Love it.
It was funny the professor turned into passive aggressive condensing and kitty turned into a condescending mom.
Kitty and Jon got hostile and tried to unjustifiably vilify and pin down Jason right off the bat. They forced Jason into the most awkward and defensive position for no reason. They constantly interrupted him but somehow it was wrong when Jason interrupted Kitty.
They tried to straw-man Jason as if he was a crazy corporatist, they put words in his mouth, and they were really rude. They didn't even disagree with Jason most the time but they really wanted to take it there. Really irritating from Kitty and Jon.
They're just looking for sound bite "slap back" and when he didn't play ball they got aggressive. Disappointing.
@@airliners321 It's sad that people don't understand that a lot of modern "economists" are a doctor prescribing leeches for the poor, and modern medicine for the very rich. They are the scientists who tell us that cigarettes are good for us. Jon is 100% correct on this.
@@airliners321 I think they played well off one another. Made for an engaging debate
Team Kitty coming off the top rope and gently and sweetly putting Jason to sleep with the down pillow over the face. He didn’t even know what was happening. 😊
Kitty was incredible. That is how you lead! She handled condescension with grace and stood her ground, with facts and data to back her up! Loved her! I want to hear her more!
Yeah, Furman doesn't know how to have a decent conversation. I pity his students.
You could tell she was ready to jump in with coherent arguments against stupid stuff, but acted restrained. I've been in meetings like that and it sucks. I will say this is the first youtube vid about economics that I've watched all the way through.
She was also a MASTER at communicating with someone bent on being condescending and missing the point of what they said. It was ssooooooo telling when he accused her of acting like she was introducing a new point into the conversation when she was simply trying to ask him directly to get clarification on his views
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
Although not in Harvard, as a professor, I think it is a bad idea to be condescending to someone questioning my point.
Someone who disagrees with me is not stupid. It is enough to say: that's incorrect, and move on to explain what is the correct answer to the question at hand.
Fantastic work Jon! You're probably my favorite human on this planet.
Agreed. Or, what you think the correct answer to be-because being an expert doesn’t make you a prophet.
I think the condescension from Jason comes from him not being able to take off his academic hat for long enough to realize that John and Kitty were talking about inflation colloquially and not as the literal rate of change in goods and services. When you get passed that it’s clear they all agree in general about when things to get expensive for Americans, the government should help.
I think he did that at the end because he was frustrated and felt like they weren't listening to what he was saying. Which I understand, the discussion was mostly I think X is the problem and Jason would say yeah I agree X is bad and a problem but X isn't the cause of inflation.
@@Gronmin yes! Thats it! But that mostly comes from everyone at the table navigating in and out of the academic hyper specific definition of inflation and the layman “things are costing more” colloquial definition of inflation. All of Jason’s pushback centers around inflation as a rate of change. Government intervention and spending can help subsidize costs for specific goods and services or critical needs like housing, but government spending doesn’t lower inflation in the academic sense.
@@bigboma uh no, there isn't even really a specific academic definition for inflation that differs from the public one. If that were the case they wouldn't have agreed that wage increases cause inflation and that excess spending causes inflation among other points that they agreed with Jason on.
“I’m gonna ask Kitty first because she’s less condescending to me” 👏👏👏 call that shit out, Jon
His double take when the guy tried to start talking about the positives of the supply chain during this discussion had my howling.
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
The guy wasn't being condescending he just disagreed with Jon's points. Jon isn't an expert on this subject, so he shouldn't be getting so angry when he is disagreed with. Guess he's used to having his a$$ kissed
@@jmully9525 I genuinely hope you keep watching this podcast so you can contrast this behavior with other expert guests who disagree with Jon. I guarantee you none of them tell him he should take "(insert subject)" 101 class.
@@timchamberlain5858 but maybe Jon should actually "take a class" on this subject? I respect your opinion but I found this very hard to listen to. I think Jon was emotional and defensive. Watch the nonzero podcast with Robert wright to see how to disagree calmly and respectfully. Jon needs to decide if he wants to debate or have a conversation, they are distinct and he framed this as the latter, but behaved like it is the former. This isn't the Thanksgiving table with your drunk relatives! Also the 25 yr old woman was the condescending one, talking like a 4th grade teacher to her students. The way she talked was in that robotic- faux -"nice"- know it all style , literally the most condescending thing I've seen in a while. Sorry I guess the podcasts I listen to are just more polite and that's what I'm used to.
I love this woman! Putting a human face on economic issues FINALLY!
Someone who always says " you don't understand " repetitively instead of saying " let me explain what I mean" is not really a good teacher. If you're a condescending passive-agressive high on your horse teacher, you're a nightmare teacher and forgive me, a bit of a dick. Jon, respect.
Teachers who just want their opinions parroted back to them were always the most frustrating and boring classes to take cause you can never have a single original thought. It's like a history class where all the teacher cares about is you memorizing the exact date and location of a battle but not what the battle was actually about; except this kinda teacher attitude is worse cause now you have to memorize (quite often) horrible opinions
Pretty sure my Econ 101 teacher never used the phrase “this is basic economics” so many times in an hour… I woulda wanted to fight frfr
@@pairuptech So then Paul Krugman got the Nobel for not being a dick? 'Condescending teacher' is an oxymoron IMO. Most people's ears turn off when being an object of condescension.
@@pairuptech The man's professorship is sponsored by an oligopolistic anticompetitive corporation shafting consumers in health insurance
Can't believe this dude is a teacher, much less one from Harvard
Kitty spitting truth like fire! ❤🎉❤🎉❤
Loved how Jon pushed back whenever Jason was being so condescending. Jason needs to get out of his Ivory Tower. The Fed gave bailouts to corporations and austerity measures to everyone else. Very spicy episode! 🌶️
Aetna Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy at Harvard University…
Jason does not have the ability to question parameters that he was taught not to question Primarily, he and his cohort was never taught to consider durability/fragility, which really is the kryptonite when considering issues such as supply chains or any other good that might see bottlenecks due to queuing theory.
He is going to be dragged out and dealt with as he deserves!!!
Now I know why people don't want to listen to 'experts'
@@donrobertson4940 Because they know exactly what is happening and are lying to you about the money they are stealing
Team Kitty!!!
I adore her calm demeanor, her eloquence, her up to date facts and ideas and how she kept reaching across the aisle to Jason to have common ground.
Kitty should be the Ivy League professor.
Her voice is 😊so smooth, too
This is the most polite "How do like them apples" takedown since Good Will Hunting. Kitty owned Furman at every turn.
Kitty should be in government :)
LMAO. Kitty gets an uninterrupted 6 minute feel good rant at 25:55. Jason starts to explain his view and Kitty and John immediately interrupt him.
Kitty gets double the amount of speaking time to Jason.
Get out of your leftist bubble.
@@MTG113lmao he literally interrupts her after 30 seconds
The main thing that crossed my mind during this conversation was that Jon is getting spoke to exactly like I've been spoken to throughout my life as a woman.... Aside from that, I think it's unfair for Jason to disregard the role of corporations in this cost of living crisis. So many people want to point to workers or point or politicians to place blame, but when companies are seeing record profits and CEOs are getting record bonuses, you have to question whether or not they are taking advantage of this inflationary period to increase prices. I can't believe that it's the worker's fault for wanting to buy groceries that the cost of eggs has increased by almost 60% in the last year...
The thing is there is no question here - as Jon pointed out and has highlighted before, the CEOs have been openly bragging on their earnings calls about artificially high price rises because of the smoke screen of the inflation environment caused by the over stimulus and genuine supply chain issues.
Exactly. If corporations were only raising prices to offset input costs their profit margins would not have gone up to their highest points in history. That only happens if corporations were taking advantage and gouging consumers.
Jason Furman is a scam, he is only in power because the rich want him to be teaching bullshit. Inflation = rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
you are in the poor category if you have less than $50 million in assets. Guess who has the money to bribe politicians to start inflation? and do nothing about it? The rich has the money to pay our corrupt politicians. The poor don't have the money. BUT PLEASE LOOK ELSEWHERE. Keep voting maybe things will get better one day 🤣🤣
Jon your wrap up conversation said everything I was shouting at my phone during the main conversation. Thank you!
Jason seems to go out of his way to be insulting and to demand time in the broadcast while Kitty seems to go out of her way to recognize his contributions to the conversations and make her own points. Please ask her back.
LMAO. Kitty gets an uninterrupted 6 minute feel good rant at 25:55. Jason starts to explain his view and Kitty and John immediately interrupt him.
Kitty gets double the amount of speaking time to Jason.
Get out of your leftist bubble.
@@MTG113The reason it feels the opposite is because of HOW they speak. One is condescending, one is engaged and curious
@@CMBell1985 Who is engaged and curious?
Oh, you mean how Jon interrupts Jason every time he tries to explain Jon's question. Yeah, Jon was quite engaged in trying to push his own political arguments.
What is the purpose of having conservatives on really? I'm tired of them
@@MTG113 I can't, my cats and dogs might get eaten by immigrants. You're the one in the bubble (that's Trump's defense for all of the horrible shit he does). It's the same things kindergartners do. I know you are but what am I. And some how , his sheep buy it. I mean, he said news was fake and millions believed him without seeing a shred of evidence. They now watch actual fake news on Fox and there is plenty of evidence to prove that. But they don't care. They just want someone to say something they agree with. Truth doesn't matter.
Very illuminating. Kitty was AWESOME and honest. Jason was inconsistent and shifted and shuffled when caught in a lie; the fact that he's teaching so dishonestly is scary. Jon, you definitely got it!
so often I try to defend experts and explain how people who actually devote themselves to a particular subject tend to be pretty humble about what they know and don't know and have tremendous respect and appreciation for the nuance and difficulty of constructing accurate narratives from complicated and contradictory data. And then I listen to an economist, and despair.
😂
If you keep interrupting people with different viewpoints, you are taking greater profits in the marketplace of ideas, right?
I blame their reliance on rational choice models. If you can make two completely contradictory points with the same data, you're dealing with opinions, not empirical, natural science. Overemphasizing the few times models reflect reality gives them false confidence and a desire to explain why models don't work in most cases.
@@4daptability991 Not every field is a science, nor does every field have to be, but it's especially frustrating when people in a field think it's a science when it isn't.
@@distracted-dadnot every "field" has to be considered a science, but economics is very much a science. The problem is oversimplifying something that is incredibly complex and being lazy in how they apply scientific principles.
Kitty is on point. Her analysis and description of the problem is astoundingly good.
i have to take a break at 40 minutes. jason is raising my blood pressure
I did exactly the same thing!!! OMGod I was going to have a heart attack
I probably should have! I was starting to grit my teeth
Thanks for the warning?! I love the spicy content though.
Yeah, this is the first one I stopped watching halfway through.
I paused it at 15 minutes in to turn it off, but checked the comments first to see if anyone was picking up on it. Jason is coming right out of the gates blaming helping working people as the cause for inflation. Sure, most of the trillions went to corporations, but sure, it was the working people.
I probably won’t hit play again on this episode though. I have no time to listen to someone with a selective focus like himself that is clueless.
Kitty has a composure I cannot comprehend... Amazing woman!!!
I have always had issues with people like Jason. Everything that comes out of his mouth sees from his POV w/o Ill intent and yet goes down like a dry pill w/o water...
She clearly has significant experience being mansplained by her fellow economists and has learned how to roll with the blatant condescension,
@cynthiaolmsted8446 I love, LOVE her zero Ego!!!
She is next level!!! I so agree with you!!!
a dry pill with spikes on it🥴
She obviously knows how to deal with a 2 year old
@@donnavictor5986I was gonna say the style she began to adopt to deal with him was very reminiscent of handling a toddler
Thank you for always being that voice of clarity in a confusing state of affairs!
Man, I wish these podcasts were longer. I learn so much from the back and forth and could listen for hours.
I'd love to see some guests go into the history of our tax code, how we got to where we are, what significant changes have been made and their impact, and what changes people are reccomending to "fix" it and the data behind those ideas
I don't care if non essentials prices go up due to inflation, or supply and demand issues, but there should be some controls on prices of essentials (food, utilities, housing). To control prices you simply set a cap on the percentage increase above cost allowed on those things. This way businesses and corporations will still have a profit, but will prevent price gouging. Personally I would prefer that on all things, but that would never happen. Kitty definitely understands the situation, Jason has his head up his economicass.
I'm enjoying your guests. That they can push your buttons and you respond with something resembling dignity is something I admire. Also, your producer chats are fun.
Make this podcast like Arrested Development and BRING KITTY BACK. I genuinely felt represented by John and Kitty who were explaining how corporations have so much power in the economy. I'm a full-time caregiver and for someone to blame inflation on my need for eggs is so condescending and gross. I am working to stay alive, thank you John and Kitty for giving me some form of hope.
Also John's aggressive nodding while Kitty talks is KILLER
Nice AD reference, Jason seems like the kind of guy to buy bananas for $10
@@NinjaRabbit29 Wow, you killed that. I'll reference it any chance possible and you matched if not topped mine!
This is one of the absolute best podcasts for longform discussions on complex topics with intelligent guests that come with intellectual honesty, fact-based arguments, and high quality details in their synopsis. Thanks for putting together such a fantastic program!
Ordinarily I would agree with you but Josh had the intellectual honesty of George Santos. There are several times where he was caught in a corner where his own economic model disagreed with what he was saying so he redrew the framework to make himself sound correct. It was dirty and he smiled every time he did it.
@@youruniquehandle2 I see your point about Josh. He was certainly playing the shell game at several points in the discussion and did exactly what you are saying he did. I do think that it's possible he honestly represented what he thinks. He happens to be wrong and needs to think more about it. The proof that people like him are wrong about many of their conclusions is in the fact that he is a person that our leaders listen to for understanding the economy and has produced many deleterious effects in the real world from his incorrect conclusions and yet, continues to labor under the delusion that he is right, resorting to gaslighting that he actually saw the truth, but you are too stupid to see what he sees or remember what he said exactly. I struggle to know whether he is wrong, knows it, and in turn lies to make things work with his current understanding, or he is wrong, doesn't know it, and in turn gives bad advice to people in the seats of power. I tend to think that his position at Harvard compels him to always assert his perception that he was right about everything by revising his original assertions and postures like he always had the right understanding and then resorts to gaslighting. I also have noticed that professors almost never admit to being wrong even when they know that they are. And certainly that effect is increased when that professor is in economics and teaching at Harvard. In the end, you are probably correct to point out his dishonesty, but I still think this show regularly has intellectually honest guests on to have great discussions.
@@youruniquehandle2Jason?
Yeah.
I love that Jon is bringing on experts like this. I think macroeconomics aren’t actually that difficult for your average person to understand, they just need more exposure to it.
This long form discussion between two different schools of thought is fantastic. Thanks Jon, keep it up!
I don't like that Jason is considered an expert. Bringing conservative people like him on hinder the discussion
@@avigindratt7608 Right?!? We already have programs that platform conservative economists. They're called "Everything on TV."
Jason went into this podcast thinking he was going to be Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. Jon and Kitty came into this expecting to have a conversation. Dude was defensive, pulling debate tactics, and trying to counter-argue every single statement to win points instead of actually listening and talking in good faith.
Being a loan originator, I watch what the economy does daily. It surprises me that we as consumers keep having to bear corporate greed. During the pandemic, the supply chain was impacted which resulted in higher prices due to less supply, but we did not see this shift when the supply chain opened back up. Corporations kept the prices high and we felt it as consumers.The Fed then stepped in and increased the Fed Funds rate which further increased the cost of buying things with credit. I have personally seen people’s overall credit debt go up and by increasing the rates so much it halted people from purchasing due to the monthly payment. The Fed always seems to be behind the curve which results in wild swings. So, I think it is a two fold issue between Fed policy and corporate greed.
MV=PY.
I've been saying that corporate greed has been driving inflation for a while. They are making record profits. Agreed about supply chain issues but they've been resolved for a long time and prices never came down. Company's are in business to make m I money as they should. Greed is something else.
@staceyurner3953 The fed didn't have much of a role in bringing this inflation down. Their constraints on the market affected homebuilding, which only makes our situation worse.
This inflation was more due to supply chain issues and greed. The assistance for COVID was only a portion..
Correcto. "Greedflation" es la problema mayor con la economía moderna
Maybe the fed needs to be run by poorer people! All these Fed chairs and board members are almost certainly multi-millionaires, bankers, who have zero idea of how the leverage loan rates have on people living month to month and desperate for pay day to come. They simply don’t get it, so it’s just numbers and inputs from ivory tower dicks like Jason Furman that sway their policy.
So, here’s the thing- let’s say that Jason is right. Let’s say that the main cause of inflation is people having more money in their pockets in one fell swoop but when corporations make huge profits, it doesn’t add to inflation . That’s even more scary to me. What that tells me is that our ENTIRE economic system is set up to fail most of the population and totally skewed towards building huge wealth gaps. The reaction to this skewed system can’t be- “well, we can’t help people when they need it the most”, it has to be that we have to work on a system that can withstand these black swan events in a way that doesn’t continuously crush most of the population. Our economic system cannot be so divorced from our values. If you’re telling me that the best a system can do is not help most people when they literally need it the most, then what’s the solution, if not to create a different system.
Hi, whenever I hear the argument that injecting funds into the demand side increases inflation, but doing it to the supply side does not; I translate that into people will spend the money you give them, but corporations will hoard it. Which makes sense, but then I would argue that if the money is just going to be hoarded it should be spent somewhere else. I have not read a response to such an argument. Maybe we just need a way to buffer the demand side injection?
That’s a really fantastic point. Even if he’s totally right (which I highly doubt, but hey I’m not an ivy league professor) that’s still an issue - maybe an even larger issue.
I keep hearing about all the ways that “the rules of economics” mean poor people simply have to suffer and starve and die while corporate profits go up and up and up and I keep coming back to the idea that MONEY ISN’T REAL! We made it up! If the system isn’t working then maybe it’s time we change those rules.
I think that was a bit of a missed point in this interview. Jason is quite left leaning, and what you're describing is likely something he would have brought up. It felt like they wasted a lot of time painting Jason as some kind of corporate shill for explaining other nations recovered slower for reasons other than not giving their citizens as many stimulus checks.
What angers me about proponents of injecting money into the accounts of the biggest companies, is that the biggest companies are going to get the money regardless of who gets the money first: regular folks, or the big companies. The difference is that giving money to regular folks will allow them to live more comfortably than had they not got the money.
So much this. If what they say is true, you are admitting that the system is nit set up for the people. Which means we need some kind of regulation to change the system to make this set of rules work for the people it's supposed to.
I'm also very tired of economist who talk like this guy and say all this stuff like it's a for sure equation and every time they do this mess they get a different result. Maybe, they don't know as much as they think they do, because they never add in the human element.
I'm dropping Jason's economic 101.
Any prof who believes in 'trickle down economicics', should not be teaching economicics.
Jason is probably the worst guest I’ve seen on this podcast. His takes are just off.
@@ro2670and somehow incapable of having a conversation w/o belittling other people
@@bridgit001 here’s his class: give your money to the rich, the rich deserve your money, workers are bad and stupid, the rich need more money: no matter what. People bad, greed good. That’s about it.
Bro started and finished at 101 😂
Love you Jon Stewart! You push back so gracefully.
I am a CFP and attend economic presentations hosted by economists. Boy, I need to give myself a pep talk before I ask them a question, and after I ask the question, the pep talk typically goes like this. Before I Ask "You Not An Idiot. You Not An Idiot". After I Asked: " You Such An Idiot. Why Did You Ask That? You are Such An Idiot. No, You're Not An Idiot. He's Just A Jerk, A Smart Jerk But Still A Jerk. And You Need Ice Cream" So Sir John you held your ground beautifully; you are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.
Always love to see economists argue that capitalism cannot accommodate workers getting a better deal, but can always accommodate corporations getting a better deal. Sounds like we need a new economic system, Jason!
It feels like you have two guests here, both of whom understand economics... but one thinks the economy should be managed to benefit people, while the other thinks people should be managed to benefit the economy.
Nah, Jason ignores reality to manage the economy the way it SHOULD work in a perfectly efficient market (that doesn't exist), based purely on theory, while ignoring how actual economics works.🤦🤦
Symbiosis is defined as a close, prolonged association between two or more different biological species. This relationship can be symbiotic (mutualistic)
@@MichaelBerthelsen And this is why trickle-down economics keeps being tried, despite everyone knowing it doesn't work....economists keeping trying to fit the peg in the wrong hole without wanting to question themselves.
The most frustrating part was his own inconsistencies. "Inflation is driven by the interest we have to pay on debt from deficits" -> "the low corporate taxes that result in all this debt isn't a lever to modulate inflation. They have nothing to do with that."
And the abhorrent condescension. I'd have ended things early.
@@Zeckert13with a screaming match and a lot of expletives
I love this debate format, and I think I'd love it even more if it was paired with educational segments where we dive a little more into the foundational knowledge needed to really understand the points of disagreement -- I could really get behind a couple months exploring all the rabbit holes surrounding an important topic.
The economic crisis and downturn are all the signs of 2008 market crash 2.0, so my question is do I still save in the US dollar or is it okay to move all emergency and savings to precious metals??
In light of the ongoing global economic crisis, it is crucial for everyone to prioritize investing in diverse sources of income that are not reliant on the government. This includes exploring opportunities in stocks, gold, silver, and digital currencies. Despite the challenging economic situation, it remains a favorable time to consider these investments. Nevertheless, seeking guidance from an investment planner might be necessary if you desire a more assertive return.
Investing in gold is a reliable choice, and I plan to keep buying more to make up for my losses. While silver is also a good investment, my collectibles are not as similar. It's important to have clear investment goals and educate yourself on the type of investment that interests you. I work with a financial consultant regulated by the SEC, and started small, but eventually accumulated over $800,000.
Can you provide instructions on how to contact your advisor? I'm experiencing erosion of my funds due to inflation and looking for a more profitable investment strategy to make better use of them.
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Marisa Michelle Litwinsky’’ for about two years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
I appreciate this. After curiously searching her name online and reviewing her credentials, I'm quite impressed. I've contacted her as I could use all the help I can get. A call has been scheduled.
Even when I'm days behind Jon keeps me update. My best to him.💙💙💙💯
She keeps saying this is where they might agree and he keeps being like nope. 😂
If you get the time, if you could discuss housing and what could be done to make it better in America. Rent costs are going up and it's harder to find a new home to rent or own because cost as well as supply. I feel like no one is building homes under 200k because there isn't enough profit for them. Building high value homes raises everyone tax rates around them too. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about so would like you and your team to dive into it like you did with inflation today. Also, thank you for all you do Jon. We love you!
There are cheaper homes but they just might not be where you want to be. In the higher demand areas NIMBY's usually want to restrict supply. Honestly , you want cheaper homes to rent and buy? Make it easier to build. How to make it easier to build? Oppose those who want to restrict development in their neighborhoods. Its usually older white boomers who bring up other things like "character" of their neighborhoods so they arent coming off as disgusting as they are.
I’m always frustrated to hear economists talk about people choosing to spend more or less. For a large portion of Americans our spending is paycheck to paycheck. What gets chosen is how much individual debt we have to go into to survive when inflation goes up and wages lag behind.
We’re not choosing to buy eggs at a higher price because we can afford to buy them at that price. We need to buy eggs to live and we will have to pay the price on the shelf
Economists only care about the rich because they themselves are rich.
Boom!
@@nathandavenport6830 Their argument is always that you don't need anything, everything is a want because the baseline to them is eating dirt and foraging for herbs. Except whose dirt and herbs will poor people eat if all the land is also a private commodity? Never any reckoning from these theorists about how much their models fail to capture the real world.
I have gotten away from pay check to pay check, but now the next set of challenges arise. Trying to save to buy a house while paying for medical bills. Paying the rent to be close to work or spend it on putting miles on my car. Deciding if I should have kids and immediately worrying about how expensive that is. Inflation of fuel food and housing affect these decisions and create instability and insecurity. It is so dehumanizing to call an economy hot or cold and to treat workers income as the thermostat.
I took a course in grad school about international food markets and policy and read a bunch of business reports, mckinsey consulting reports, etc, and it really showed me just how simple the economists' view of the world is. Every single time it just boiled down to "we suggest you do things that make money and cut costs everywhere you can" and "invest in the successful things and divest from the unsuccessful things." People like Kitty are doing great things in the field but I get the impression most economists are like Jason, boiling very complex systems down to "its very simple basic economics though!"
And its a race to the fucking bottom in quality! 😂
@@jayroger7612 consulting reports are not reflective of what economists think. If you can, read academic journal articles in economics. That is how economists think.
Kitty Richards is great! Thanks for the podcast
I love listening to John fight for people while leaving politics out of it. I feel rich vs poor is far more important than red vs blue.
Except it’s the same thing.
How the hell did you listen to this and think he was "leaving politics out of it"?
After watching this espisode, whatever little regard I had for the Harvard Econ school dropped to zero.
I'm sure I'm Dunning Kruger-ing the fuck out of myself here but was I the only one screaming at my radio that if deficits contribute to inflation and tax cuts for the rich contribute to deficits the you can't say that tax cuts don't contribute to inflation?
Not D-K, Jason's a delusional prick here...🤦
avg dummy here, your last sentence made me go momentarily crosseyed while my brain rebooted.. you've got a double negative going on and idk wtf you mean.
tax cuts for the *wealthy* is diff than tax relief for middle and lower class households
I was thinking the exact same thing, right down to wondering how much Dunning-Kruger was relevant to my line of thinking.
That's how they get you. He didn't even explain how it doesn't. He just gave an "Oh honey. You just don't get it." and skipped right over it.
@Zeckert13 you know a guy has lost an argument when he starts saying stuff like "I teach economics 101 and thats not what we teach"
Yes, Jon!
Fixing the price fixers is not price fixing!
Excellent! I hope Jason comes back and read the comments.
I think Jason had some important points in there but I think my understanding was hampered by feeling like he feels like the “avg person” is both too incompetent to understand economic theory (so he doesn’t really breakdown and defend his point effectively) and his not addressing the fact that the pain avg citizens are experiencing is agnostic on whether the economy is doing well. He’s explaining how the economy rolls on a frictionless surface but I think his argument would have been bolstered by anchoring his argument in how it will effect regular people and how they are going to survive. These macro arguments all sound like they are suggesting that I, the hourly worker, need to be sacrificed so that the almighty abstract of the economy will flourish and bless the survivors
I had that feeling as well.
also that "economic theory" is fucking THEORY, and therefore malleable. if he's finding it hard to explain to people then perhaps the theory is getting over-complicated for purposes beyond what matters to 98% of people.
removing corporate person-hood and disintegrating citizens united would probably help simplify these things significantly. big business should be disregarded in any areas HUMANS actually care about.
nobody fucking cares about your "needs", ...Kroger(?) ...you're a grocery store chain! fucking act like it! bootstraps!
I get how economists can sound cold and detached when talking about fed policy but there's real human pain caused by being too lenient with inflation as well. And voters are indicating they really *really* hate inflation and are threatening to maybe re-elect a right wing authoritarian because of it. So I think it's necessary to take that big picture approach that tries to minimize total pain, and it seems to me like the Fed did a pretty good job considering the circumstances. For every person you could point to who is harmed by rising interest rates (or if we had hypothetically done less stimulus in 2021), you could just as easily point to another anecdote of a person harmed by excessive inflation. So their job is very macro and utilitarian, not personal because of the scope of the issue.
@@sergiominchey4429 Have seen more people complaining about the effects of how the Fed is dealing with the inflation, more than inflation itself. If wages had been stagnant for like decades, and all of a sudden there's a panic over inflation when wages finally catch up to the rate of inflation....then it is pretty clear the main driver of inflation cannot be wage growth. (unless talking about CEO wages, maybe, given how out of control those have been)
@Vaeldarg Consumer sentiment in the UMich survey hit its low point (lower than the great recession) in June 2022, which is also when inflation hit its high point. That year, prices were outpacing wage growth. At that point, the federal funds rate had only just begun rising to 1.68%. Consumer sentiment was much less bad once the fed funds rate was 5.33% and real wages were growing in 2023. But that said, now that we've put out the fire and real wages are growing again, I think consumer sentiment will improve when interest rates are lower. If you raise rates on auto loans, that stops people from buying so many cars and lets supply catch up, but they just perceive it as another source of cost increase. It's still better than letting the problem burn out of control, which I believe would have made economic sentiment worse than it currently is.
Absolutely legendary self control from two of these people.
I might have missed it, but i think Jon's main point was the choices the government has been making since Reagan espoused "trickle down economics" have all been tailored to keep money in the pockets of rich people and corporations at the expense of regular folks. The Harvard professor insisted on talking only about inflation and didn't address the fact that constant reductions in corporate and the top 1% tax rates increase the deficit more than any monies given to workers. Jon seemed to be trying to make the point that it's about the choices made that increase the deficit. Choosing corporations over workers is what Jon was calling topsy turvy, and he's right. Trickle down has never worked, and it never will. Fiscal inequality is higher than ever and will only get worse in the future.
Well said!
I love who Jon finds to discuss dry yet important topics like inflation, corporate profits. Excellent choices for a panel.
Please make a recurring guest lineup with these two. Honestly this is such a fascinating exchange of ideas and I so appreciated a discussion where people disagree pleasantly.
EDIT: Okay I got to the part where Jon mentions he could do this every week. PLEASE YES.
Damn, Jason really wasn't capable of treating you with respect once you challenged his overall thesis that the only thing that could impact inflation/deflation is the fed lowering/raising rates.
Any other economist would be able to say that there are multiple inputs that affect inflation and deflation. The fed can do some things but the Fed is only a part of it. I think like in any profession there are ideologies and schools of thought that wax and wane. There is the old school (now) that opposes regulation and statist oriented input so they want to keep it on the lending level instead of more direct action. We can see that direct action works as part of an overall comprehensive way to make the economy nwork for the working population...but sigh there are still some economists vehemently opposed to that so they want to say that its really only the Fed that has impact.
It's as if nothing ever trickled down on him before.
Agreed. This was a little disappointing because Jason has been a pretty valuable guest in the past. I was surprised by his choice to condescend rather than listen. He got very defensive, and that solves nothing. And it was sort of annoying that Kitty had to soft shoe her questions posed to Jason at the end to get him to actually acknowledge her points.
@@MikeSchmidt969 Completely agree. Had the same exact takeaways.
If Jason were 1/8th as smart as he thinks he is. We would be on Mars already because he would have a more consequential degree than an economics degree.
My state had that Egg problem. They destroyed eggs to artificial supplies and jacked up prices. And recently we found out that apartment and home owners have been colluding with each other to price gouge the rent prices for profit via an app.
I think it's the most important economic conversation in the Country as well 👍😎✊
Thanks Team Jon
I listened to this yesterday and Jason was so condescending! Jon, you are the progressive voice of Gen X and I am inspired by your wit and genuine concern for your fellow humans!!!!
Do we get to count Jon as part of Gen X, or is he a late Boomer? (This also becomes a salient question about Harris and Walz, actually.). '65 is the usual (arbitrary) cut-off, but I guess I'd tend to argue that these very-late Boomers have more in common with Gen X than they do with the Boomer center.
Jon Stewart is a boomer since he was born in 1962, as the last boomer year was 1965. Sorry, you don't get to claim him.
Excellent episode as always. Since I have no social media, may I request here an episode on the USDA. They administer the costs from WIC to forest firefighting to now water reclamation all with a small budget. Water conservation affects 40 million people in the southwest but in Arizona Saudi companies are growing water thirsty alfalfa on leased lands to ship back to the middle east. It is lowering the entire surrounding water table and residents near these fields are paying thousands every few years to drill deeper with their own wells. Thanks and keep up the good work Jon!
Kitty Richards is right on.
Jason was so condescending to Jon which was bad enough, but I’d argue even more condescending to Kitty. Like the jab that she didn’t know how Econ 101 is taught? So damn rude.
Don’t have him back, Jon. You don’t have to subject yourselves (or us for that matter) to that kind of ad hominem rhetoric.
Honestly he should have him back, because if you don’t have that devil’s advocate in the room, you won’t change someone’s opinion of what they believe to be true. Fact is just a conglomerate opinion of people confirming a belief
You can play “devil’s advocate” without being a condescending, misogynistic prick. I’m sure he’s not the only option out there and I too would advocate for not continuing to give men like him a platform.
Hard disagree, I thought both were excellent and you want a spirited debate amongst experts.
@@entropiceffect 🤡
@@reb21794 🤡
You go girl...taxes on corporations!!
If you noticed, Jason also supported taxes on corporations. He did it in such a pedantic and off putting way that everyone in the comments thinks he's Milton Friedman
Mind blown. So many things I now understand. Thank you.
I’m going to have to watch this again. And again. Because I’m by no means schooled in economics and this was a LESSON. But most important, Kitty is a BAS-ASS! I love that when it was her turn to talk and Jason tried to talk over her she said “EXCUSE ME!” and did not let him…one small example of her many BOSS moments. Get it woman!
Jon, here's your answer when an economist tells you “you don't understand.” Tell them “I understand the current dogma; it's just that I don't believe the current dogma is the best strategy, because the current dogma is biased to favor the interests of the wealthy and politically powerful.”
It's also entirely possible that you actually don't understand though. It isn't dogma if you're ignorant.
Jon practically did say that when he called out using models from the 1940s, but little joshy just dismissed any criticism out of hand.
@@Blueshirt38but that's simply not the case here so that's irrelevant.
@@seandobbins2231 Right, this isn't the case here. That isn't what my comment, or the original I was replying to was about. That was a blanket statement that: whenever an economist tells you that you don't understand something, come back with this cute little quip to show how snarky and smart you are. It is absolutely possible for someone to simply not understand, and for an economist to tell them such.
Notice how Jason doesn't mention workers, labor or people once during his comments.
We're just livestock to him
Jason Furman sounds like a spoiled brat, reflecting the same stupidity of elitists blaming lower-earning people.
Perhaps, people who did not need money, went and unnecessarily spent while others who actually needed it, were able to pay their bills.
Bottom line: Rent and bills are still too high without wages matching.
But maybe that is just my inflation expectation. If I just change my expectations, my bills will lower and wages increase. 🙄
We got $2000 checks. Man acts like they were $1 million.
@@thewhitewolf58yeah, those checks helped pay off some of my student loan debt. I didn’t go out and buy a PlayStation. Or blow it on a new iPhone. I used that money to dig myself out of debt. And because of it, I was able to save up money rather than focus on paying off loans and I actually had a decent savings account to put a down payment on a house. And without that house my wife and I wouldn’t have a little girls who’s almost a year old now. I have a family and a semi comfortable financial position 100% because of those stimulus checks.
@JormungandrTheWorldSerpent BRAVO!! I had similar circumstances and storyline. Used those checks to the best advantage I possibly could. 🌊☮️🌊
Remember, he’s from Harvard. 🙄
Utilities need to come down. Monopolies are part of the problem. Also notice wages increased due to the worker shortage, and then corporations increased prices. 🤔
Jason has the same issue I see in a lot of extremely smart people: They end up dragging down discussions into reductive arguments about semantics, even if they largely agree with someone.
What I heard out of him is that: We should expect corporations and executives to be bad actors who fight fiscal and economic balance -- therefore the "fastest and most efficient way" to fight inflation is for consumers and labor to look at upcoming inflation and "expect" to be fucked in the ass, so we need to be the adults in the room and bend over and take it ASAP to get things on track. Every. Time.
Can we have more on industries that are too concentrated, (esp. in food) and how to create more competition. Great show by the way.
This was an immensely refreshing discussion on a topic I really wish was talked about more. More professors of economics need to have their beliefs challenged (I use the word "Beliefs" intentionally, because modern economics relies too heavily on assumptions and premises that don't hold up to criticism). I really hope you find a way to continue this discussion and bring on other voices (like Yanis Varoufakis)
I'm not going to pile on Jason too much, because it's not necessary to in this comment section.
But I don't believe it's a coincidence that neither he nor Larry Summers had a meaningful answer to Jon challenging the thesis of 'no no no, rich people can't put their fingers on the scale of an economy to benefit themselves while hurting regular people. The economy is this mystic force that moves in mysterious ways that we barely understand.'
What a crazy conversation. So much went over my head but still enjoyed it
These prices aren't real inflation. This is greedflation!! When corporate profits are higher than they've ever been it's not inflation.
It's still called inflation though. Doesn't matter what causes the prices to increase.
Example: a gallon of drinking water at Wakmart two years ago was 88¢. Today $1.38. Fuel prices are down, what is causing this increase?
Walmart has reported the highest profits in the history of the company,a company that controls a massive percentage of working class consumer.
A lot of the inflation is very much tied to the expectations of inflation, but undoubtedly there were a lot of companies that used the cover of inflation to bleed their customers.
@@PeteQuad
Sure as shit matters what causes the prices to increase, if you're going to combat it.
@@lonepigeon68 it matters, of course, but you have to read my comment in context. It doesn't matter what causes it, it is still called inflation.
I appreciate the high level discussion of economic and inflation theory, but what I generally appreciate most about you, John, is you (and Kitty some this time) bring it back to how it has effected the American people. I live in Iowa, a state which, only a few of decades ago, provided 7% of the World's food (probably because of the corn thing, but still impressive). Here in Iowa we have seen the price of a gallon of milk and a pound of butter DOUBLE since Covid. I have no clue what has happened to you coastal folks, but it cannot be good. We need the working class to take Washington back from the Oligarchy and make it work for school teachers and railroad workers. While I'll take Mrs. Harris' "Washinton as usual" over either of the crazy boys, people need to realize she's not the real long-term answer. Its high time we had a 3rd political party in this country that carefully considers "government by the people, of the people, FOR the people".
I also agree with Jon. That the discussion is painfully needed.
That Jason is a professor of economics? No wonder we have huge problem.
for white collar conservative youth….
@@romanborris7919this👌🏾
Personally, Jason sounded like he was being paid to do corporate damage control.
Guarantee he makes all his money off stocks, so he loves an economy that steals from the workers to pay the lazy stock investor royalty.
his Harvard was showing.
I think the condescension from Jason comes from him not being able to take off his academic hat for long enough to realize that John and Kitty were talking about inflation colloquially and not as the literal rate of change in goods and services. When you get passed that it’s clear they all agree in general about when things to get expensive for Americans, the government should help.
Like all economists.
You missed the point too, @patmullen7597. Furman came off as condescending because Jon and Kitty made him seem like the bad guy. In reality, they were practically in perfect agreement. You should watch it again and see if Furman ever says anything in defense of corporations. They are all for higher corporate taxes and all think the people would have lower costs if the Fed lowered interest rates earlier. The conflict is over whether inflation is relevant. It's not, no matter how much Jon and Kitty want to talk about inflation. Inflation is only important to Jon's agenda because it just happened and Jon wants to be topical. No problem with that, but it results in the host getting confused about what the discussion should be about.
Wow, this was an excellent discussion! I really appreciated Jon’s questions and Kitty’s explanations, in particular. I think Jason also had some good points, but there was a level of condescension there that rubbed me the wrong way. There is a serious issue with corporate greed that has a very real impact on us regular people and jobs and everything else. There is a reason that just saying that the economy is doing great doesn’t resonate with people’s back accounts. Though a lot of that has to do with the benchmarks we rate the economy on and the foolish idea that growth must be made at all costs.
I really love healthy debate. Kudos and thanks to you all.
Excellent conversation on inflation!!
All need to listen to this!!
what's particular painful about this is the extent and timing of those interest rate raises could have been eased and would have shocked the labor market less (based on the Fed's own research) and the pressure from the markets to reduce worker mobility is stronger than the desire to prevent people from unnecessarily losing their jobs.
No profession is as full of haughty people as economics.
Call me stupid, but I’m honestly glad I learned jack shit from my economics teacher when I was in high school. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a trump supporter now
Your summary at the end is perfect. Economists talk about their numbers all the time and make proclamations about the health of the broader economy but are disconnected from the micro level realities of everyday people. Stock market growth is great and all, but it means nothing to the 40% of Americans not invested in the stock market. A stock growing 10% a year means nothing to the person laid off to help that stock grow 10% that year. Economists cheer at higher unemployment and its effect on interest rates but lose sight of how many people are devastated by being laid off. Like you have said many times, its this prevalence of the corporate economy over the labor one that is killing this country, in addition to the general short termism of prioritizing quarterly earnings growth about all else.
This has been a fantastic educational session about economics and also about economists. I think the conversations need to distinguish between how the economic model is functioning and whether the economic model is "fair and just" and how to improve the economic model. The final comments reflect this concern and perhaps suggests that more conversations about the economic model of the U.S. could be improved to spread more of the wealth among the wealth creators by taking some of the wealth from the the "takers" as I think Mariana Mazucatto has described the major problems of the U.S. economy.
Congratulations to Jon and his fantastic team (sorry for forgetting your names) for these conversations. An hour a week spent listening to these conversations enriches us tremendously!
Increase the tax rate on all earnings over 10 million to 90%. We had this in the 40. & 50s and that was when we built the middle class. It’s the only way capitalism works.
John quit talking about anything else until you start talking about this
Then everyone who makes over this amount leaves the country or simply stops making more because it is pointless and total taxes the country gets decreases dramatically.
@@PeteQuadno. That's an empty threat that we aren't listening to anymore.
@@jcost808 really? Look at what's happening in the UK. CNN did an article on it recently, well over a hundred thousand millionaires have left. Why would you keep your company headquartered in a country that is going to take all your money? Look at California and the exodus to Texas
@@jcost808But what makes it an empty threat? Corporations have already mostly moved their labor outside of the country where they can make more money, and virtual/teleworking has taken off to where many execs don't even have to be in the country to run the corporation.
Every time Jason Furman mansplains economics to Kitty Richards, I cringe myself to death.
He's insufferable.
Yep! He's a total douche.
He wasn't 'mansplaining'. He was behaving the exact same way to a man. Check your sexism at the door, thanks.
It’s Fuxin Gross! It’s like hearing JD talk to Dana.
Jason Furman, who is this goomba?
I listened on Spotify, this one is spicy 🔥
Indeed 😅
Jon you and Kitty have voiced my thoughts on this exactly!
Man. Jason was so condescending 😂Kitty was fabulous and I'd love for her to be in charge of more things.
John: The problem with talking to economists is the constant condescension by acting like you couldnt possibly understand it like I do.
Jason: You don't understand.....
Jason: You don't understand...
Jason: You don't even understand the basics.
Yup, economists need to quit playing like they have some special insight. It's not a real social science and the foundation it rests on is sand. There's no there-there.
Agreed - the professor’s condescension was disgusting. There is a way to disagree and explain your rationale - instead he clung to his paradigm and couldn’t even consider there was a chance there were valid factors he hadn’t considered. When he tried to say how well off we were doing in this economy I wanted to vomit…. I’m an RN and my income lagged significantly behind inflation. my personal purchasing ability has decreased markedly over the last 5 years. I don’t buy the groceries I once did, go out far less often, and almost never travel. Whatever statistics you want to point to, I am not alone in the feeling that my income has not kept pace with increased pricing. I was better off in 2008. Therefore this ‘economic strength’ isn’t the type of strength that has benefitted me at all. If the economy is as strong as they say it is, then there must be other factors affecting American’s financial position and that is all that Jon and Kitty were trying to bring to the conversation.
I listened on Spotify and came here to just see if it was just me.
Yep, I couldn't even finish watching this. That man sounds like he has never met anybody, who wasn't a CEO.
I have a friend that majored in economics and is generally on the left but adopted this same condescending attitude when talking about economics as people tend to take what they are taught as dogma even if it isn't actually proven out. Thankfully in his case over a couple of years he started to come back around and we are on the same page again but it was weird to me that we saw eye to eye, he got his degree, there was a rift and eventually we got back to seeing eye to eye, but I didn't change much. Kind of makes the degree seem rather worthless ;)
“The economy” can be measured and interpreted in several different ways. Overall economic activity, growth and power is indisputably up - but mostly as measured by corporate earnings, profits, turnover and the sum of that shows huge increases over the past 10 years. But crucially, as Kitty pointed out, just counting the numbers does not tell the story of the “Everyman” - not least because the higher interest rates hit everyday people right at the margins, so while prices and wages may have risen approximately equally, a huge proportion of those pay increases have disappeared in loan and mortgage interest payments. Thus everyone feels worse off, despite having more earnings than 8, 10 years ago.
And of course, rich people, like the senior bankers who make the Fed rate decisions, all of them millionaires several times over or more, don’t see that in their day to day lives, so they don’t understand it.
@@tn_onyoutube8436 I certainly do not disagree with you but it's more than interest rates. Over the last few years I watched the prices on rock bottom basic products and services almost double. Things like store brand cheese or garbage pickup. The wages went up a bit but nowhere near as much as those items. And since most people work in retail, healthcare, or food service, the increases are more painful because we can't just skip the basics like we can luxuries.
Yes, I totally agree with your last sentence. Having to settle for a designer brand when you really wanted a bespoke item is simply not the same as having to choose between eating or paying the rent.
Why is it that each time I hear a professor or expert say the word "economics" it is systematically followed by the word "101"?
Surely if you want to accurately model the world you have to go beyond the "basic" theory, right?
Economists often are confused about their profession. They are more like archeologists, commenting on local politics from a Roman perspective. They study the past, they can't predict future behavior.
@@Ali-e5h1bmath is a great way to....predict the past.
It’s like every time conservatives go off about trans people. “It’s basic biology.” And I’m like “yeah it is. But everything I learned in the collegiate level bio courses I took said that it’s actually far more nuanced then what you learn in basic bio, and that basic course are often dumbed down so much they aren’t really that accurate at all”
@@JormungandrTheWorldSerpent Must be a result of that mythical "left-wing takeover" of where you learned that. /s
Yeah it's an argument I often use online. If someone says "basic economics" or "101". Saying "and yeah then you get advanced economics and learn it is not that simple."
That was so good - thank you very much for that conversation! Please keep it up and do more!
I agree this is a conversation America needs to hear. The media glosses over it. Can we put it into a schoolhouse Rock type video??? Please?
One thing I'd like to see discussed more is how inflation wouldn't be this big a problem if wages were keeping up with it. That's the biggest issue with this current wave of inflation IMO
This guy is just dinosaur economics. Kitty is using all available sources of data, while Jason is stuck in a text book written before computers.
Sic ‘em, Jon.
Idk enough about all of this to weigh in, but Kitty was an incredible speaker and I would love to hear more from her
Jon, You got it right. We need this to happen each and every week
The idea that it's normal to "need a mortgage" to own a home needs to die. It wasn't this way in the past and it doesn't have to be in the future. The whole industry around pushing loans as a normal means to make purchases for the middle class needs strong regulation. It's not in the public good to price everything out of reach and then force an entire populace to pay even MORE money, in the form of interest, just to attain basic needs like transportation and a space to live.
In LM Montgomery's novel "Jane of Lantern Hill", Jane, age 11, goes to spend the summer with the father she hasn't seen since infancy. It's the early 20th century. Her dad says, "well, let's go buy a house". They check out a few places, find the one they like, plop down $40, and bam, the house is theirs. Granted it's Canada and not the US but I don't think the two countries' housing markets were likely very different. Accounting for general inflation and converting currencies, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 in today's US dollars.
So yeah, I think you're making a very good point.
The goal is to male sure we're all permanently in debt- which will make us weaker- which will make us easier to sell trash to
There's no force involved. People reverse mortgage their home to pay for medical expenses that cannot save them from dying of old age. This leaves nothing for their family to inherit. Intergenerational wealth transfer is how people used to get homes without a mortgage.
I find it fascinating that we are essentially slaves to something (money) we created.
Give a trillion to billionaires. Fine
Give a trillion to people earning $25k a year. Armageddon.
It's just slaves to survival, as usual. Unless you are using money for something else, which is just choice. I'm not sure how we could have 9 million people in a city with just barter or hunter/gathering otherwise.
@MichaelLochlann as long as you were one of the strong men or a favorite of them
Kitty! Brilliant.
It was really good to have two very different macro perspectives which acknowledged where they overlapped with each other. The only sour note would be the condescension levelled at John, which a first time can be unconcious but the repeated instances speak to a personality. I know of colleagues like that (college lecturer) so its not unsurprising. I am pleased with hearing the different perspectives and it was worthwhile having the discussion.
Kudos for having a spectrum of views and opinions represented and given time for a healthy back and forth. So many outlets are just pure one sided echo chambers these days, so bravo for not being that.
So he said that giving money to people made them more willing to pay more for things, so prices went up, but it's NOT greed, he said... kinda glad he's not my professor