Professor Greg Mankiw is one of the most influential economists today: a New Keynesian, advisor to Presidents, and a good friend of Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. In this episode, the three of them discuss what we can learn from financial crises, why globalisation has lost its shine, and how best to communicate economic ideas.

Editor: Alastair Elphick. A Modulated Media production.

Professor Greg Mankiw is one of the most influential economists today: a New Keynesian, advisor to Presidents, and a good friend of Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. In this episode, the three of them discuss what we can learn from financial crises, why globalisation has lost its shine, and how best to communicate economic ideas.Editor: Alastair Elphick. A Modulated Media production.

From world events to everyday decisions, economics explains it all. Platypus Economics makes it clear, useful, and actually fun.

From world events to everyday decisions, economics explains it all. Platypus Economics makes it clear, useful, and actually fun.

Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

A Conversation with Greg Mankiw: Financial Crisis, Recessions and Communicating Economics

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/2956cd6b-cefe-4dc5-ac0e-b4340122fe70/transcript

Are these tariffs because of the wildfires?

What's the real dairy dispute?

How has Trump’s trade war impacted Canada?

How should Canada respond right now?

What are the long-term implications?

Can trust on trade be rebuilt after Trump?

In this episode of The Professor Is In, Justin Wolfers digs into the latest tariffs on Canada, answering subscriber questions and responding to comments from his earlier Diving In He addresses the suspicious timing of these new tariffs, break down the confusing dairy tariff-rate quota, and argues that total US-Canada dairy trade — about a billion dollars against hundreds of billions in overall trade — isn't worth blowing up either economy over.

On whether Canada should retaliate, Justin borrows Joan Robinson's "rocks in the harbour" metaphor: most of a tariff's cost lands on the country imposing it, so matching Trump would mostly hurt Canadians.

Finally, Justin discusses the biggest issue: trust. Once a president tears up a deal he signed, the value of his next signature is zero — and that discourages the deep, long-run cross-border investment that has defined North American trade over the past several decades.

Canadian Tariffs Diving In: https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/the-biggest-economic-story-nobodys-talking-about-diving-in

Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

In this episode of The Professor Is In, Justin Wolfers digs into the latest tariffs on Canada, answering subscriber questions and responding to comments from his earlier Diving In He addresses the suspicious timing of these new tariffs, break down the confusing dairy tariff-rate quota, and argues that total US-Canada dairy trade &mdash; about a billion dollars against hundreds of billions in overall trade &mdash; isn't worth blowing up either economy over.
On whether Canada should retaliate, Justin borrows Joan Robinson's "rocks in the harbour" metaphor: most of a tariff's cost lands on the country imposing it, so matching Trump would mostly hurt Canadians.
Finally, Justin discusses the biggest issue: trust. Once a president tears up a deal he signed, the value of his next signature is zero &mdash; and that discourages the deep, long-run cross-border investment that has defined North American trade over the past several decades.
Canadian Tariffs Diving In: https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/the-biggest-economic-story-nobodys-talking-about-diving-in
Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Should Canada answer Trump's tariffs? | The Professor Is In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/69f892a9-5de3-4b82-b535-b491014793f5/transcript

What’s SNAP and who uses it

How we ended up with SNAP cuts

What actually changed

What’s happened since

Last summer, Congress passed one of the biggest cuts to food assistance in a generation. SNAP — the program a lot of folks still call food stamps — pays about $188 a month, roughly $6 a day for groceries like milk, eggs, rice, and peanut butter. It's not enough to live on, but it's the thing that lets a parent say yes to fruit this week instead of no.

In this Diving In episode, Justin walks you through what actually happened in four parts: what SNAP is and who leans on it, how the cuts ended up tucked inside Trump's 2025 budget law alongside big tax cuts for rich households, what the law actually changed, and what the data show now. The key detail: the new formula dings states for paying the wrong amount but not for wrongly turning eligible families away — a recipe for a slower, more suspicious system. By spring 2026, more than 4 million people had lost benefits, including an estimated 1.5 million children, even as nearly one in four adults still couldn't reliably afford enough food.

If your mum, your uncle, or your own household counts on this help, this is the shift that decides whether dinner is the thing that gives when the month runs long. Justin's takeaway: when politicians cut a program, don't just ask how much they saved — ask who lost what.

Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Last summer, Congress passed one of the biggest cuts to food assistance in a generation. SNAP &mdash; the program a lot of folks still call food stamps &mdash; pays about $188 a month, roughly $6 a day for groceries like milk, eggs, rice, and peanut butter. It's not enough to live on, but it's the thing that lets a parent say yes to fruit this week instead of no.
In this Diving In episode, Justin walks you through what actually happened in four parts: what SNAP is and who leans on it, how the cuts ended up tucked inside Trump's 2025 budget law alongside big tax cuts for rich households, what the law actually changed, and what the data show now. The key detail: the new formula dings states for paying the wrong amount but not for wrongly turning eligible families away &mdash; a recipe for a slower, more suspicious system. By spring 2026, more than 4 million people had lost benefits, including an estimated 1.5 million children, even as nearly one in four adults still couldn't reliably afford enough food.
If your mum, your uncle, or your own household counts on this help, this is the shift that decides whether dinner is the thing that gives when the month runs long. Justin's takeaway: when politicians cut a program, don't just ask how much they saved &mdash; ask who lost what.
Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

The Biggest Economic Story Nobody's Talking About | Diving In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/5fc39b9e-7d0c-437f-8375-b48f00b5055c/transcript

This tariff broke the Canada exception

Trump keeps renegotiating his own trade deal

The list is weird because the law is weird

Small for America, real money for Canada

Canada may be the warning shot

Trump's new 50% tariffs on Canada bypass USMCA — here's what it really means for you.

President Trump just hit a limited set of Canadian goods with 50% tariffs, and he did it by dusting off Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — a law last used when Herbert Hoover was in the building. Justin Wolfers walks you through what actually happened, why it's stranger than it sounds, and why the direct cost to the U.S. is smaller than the message behind it.

Here's the twist: throughout the earlier trade wars, being compliant with the USMCA free trade agreement was your escape hatch — roughly 90% of Canadian goods came in duty-free. These new proclamations ignore that agreement entirely. Justin's quick-and-dirty math says the tariffs cover a bit more than $20 billion of imports, about 5% of what we buy from Canada — meaning maybe $50 to $150 a year on your household, plus higher prices from American firms that now face less competition. For Canada it's a real hit: close to 1% of GDP.

But the bigger story is confidence. If a signed trade deal only holds until the next presidential mood swing, it's not really a rule. Justin argues Canada is the test case — a warning to the roughly 60 countries facing new tariffs any week now: retaliate, and your trade deal may not save you.

Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics
Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Trump's new 50% tariffs on Canada bypass USMCA &mdash; here's what it really means for you.
President Trump just hit a limited set of Canadian goods with 50% tariffs, and he did it by dusting off Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 &mdash; a law last used when Herbert Hoover was in the building. Justin Wolfers walks you through what actually happened, why it's stranger than it sounds, and why the direct cost to the U.S. is smaller than the message behind it.
Here's the twist: throughout the earlier trade wars, being compliant with the USMCA free trade agreement was your escape hatch &mdash; roughly 90% of Canadian goods came in duty-free. These new proclamations ignore that agreement entirely. Justin's quick-and-dirty math says the tariffs cover a bit more than $20 billion of imports, about 5% of what we buy from Canada &mdash; meaning maybe $50 to $150 a year on your household, plus higher prices from American firms that now face less competition. For Canada it's a real hit: close to 1% of GDP.
But the bigger story is confidence. If a signed trade deal only holds until the next presidential mood swing, it's not really a rule. Justin argues Canada is the test case &mdash; a warning to the roughly 60 countries facing new tariffs any week now: retaliate, and your trade deal may not save you.
Subscribe&nbsp;on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Why Trump’s New Tariff Is Bigger Than Canada | Diving In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/aa33dea4-3bab-49d3-81ab-b48e013acac9/transcript

A Conversation with Greg Mankiw: Financial Crisis, Recessions and Communicating Economics

In 1 playlist(s)

Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips