When prices go up, buyers want less and sellers want more. But how much more? Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers discuss how responsive people are to price changes, and why.

Co-host: Nastaran Tavakoli-Far. Editor: Alastair Elphick. A Modulated Media production.

When prices go up, buyers want less and sellers want more. But how much more? Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers discuss how responsive people are to&nbsp;price changes, and why.Co-host: Nastaran Tavakoli-Far. 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

Elasticity - What will you do when prices change? 

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/9790e895-c1d2-4f45-a02e-b4340124b8b5/transcript

What stood out to Justin in the comments

Who’s hurt most by administrative burdens

Justin responds to the “Devil’s Advocates”

Pros and cons of states paying more

Join Delete Me

The long-term costs

How we can respond

Recent changes to SNAP quietly cut food assistance from 4 million Americans — 1.5 million of them children (plus elderly, disabled, and other eligible recipients who were never the intended target). In this follow-up to his earlier video Diving In to SNAP cuts, Justin Wolfers answers follow-up questions and explains how the policy actually plays out for real people.

Justin walks through why administrative burdens do so much damage: when it's harder to apply, appeal, or bring in paperwork, the people who fall off are often the ones who need help the most. He unpacks the state incentives too: tell caseworkers to reduce payment errors but say nothing about wrongful denials, states get cautious and just boot folks off. And because states run balanced budgets, shifting SNAP costs to them breaks its role as an automatic stabilizer — in the next recession, when more people need food, spending will fall exactly when it should rise.

The stakes are personal. That $6-a-day benefit is groceries for a neighbor, a kid at your child's school, a friend going through a divorce whose income just cratered. And Justin's argues that if Americans understood who's losing help and why, they might feel differently about it.

Six Dollars a Day Is Disappearing For Millions: https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/the-biggest-economic-story-nobodys-talking-about-diving-in

🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌

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

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

Recent changes to SNAP quietly cut food assistance from 4 million Americans &mdash; 1.5 million of them children (plus elderly, disabled, and other eligible recipients who were never the intended target). In this follow-up to his earlier video Diving In to SNAP cuts, Justin Wolfers answers follow-up questions and explains how the policy actually plays out for real people.
Justin walks through why administrative burdens do so much damage: when it's harder to apply, appeal, or bring in paperwork, the people who fall off are often the ones who need help the most. He unpacks the state incentives too: tell caseworkers to reduce payment errors but say nothing about wrongful denials, states get cautious and just boot folks off. And because states run balanced budgets, shifting SNAP costs to them breaks its role as an automatic stabilizer &mdash; in the next recession, when more people need food, spending will fall exactly when it should rise.
The stakes are personal. That $6-a-day benefit is groceries for a neighbor, a kid at your child's school, a friend going through a divorce whose income just cratered. And Justin's argues that if Americans understood who's losing help and why, they might feel differently about it.
Six Dollars a Day Is Disappearing For Millions:&nbsp;<a href="https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/the-biggest-economic-story-nobodys-talking-about-diving-in">https://omny.fm/shows/platypus-economics/the-biggest-economic-story-nobodys-talking-about-diving-in</a>
🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌
Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

How SNAP's New Rules Make Eligible Families Go Hungry | The Professor Is In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/883176c1-50bd-4897-93f6-b49801453a5f/transcript

Introducing Jamieson Greer

Trade enlarges the pie

Consumers count too

“Cheap” is doing work

Nostalgia isn’t a policy

Deficits aren’t scoreboards

Pulling the threads together

Donald Trump's trade representative Jamison Greer thinks about trade like a litigator: clients, injuries, bad actors, and remedies. Justin Wolfers takes Greer's own words from his recent interview with The Daily and shows why that worldview rests on muddled thinking about what trade actually is — and why it ends up costing you.

In this Diving In episode, Justin lays out the tells and discusses the bottom line. The numbers are blunt: New York Fed research finds roughly 90% of the tariff burden falls on U.S. firms and consumers, and low-income households bear a disproportionate share. Census data shows imports from China fell — but rose nearly one-for-one from the rest of the region. A lot of trade just changed addresses.

By the end you'll have a portable BS detector for any trade argument — from Trump, Vance, Greer, or your uncle at Thanksgiving.

The Daily Episode With Jamieson Greer: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/podcasts/the-daily/more-trump-tariffs-are-coming.html 

🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌

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

Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers

One more thing: When I create these videos, I often crunch a few numbers in Stata, with whom I’ve got a paid partnership. Today, I used it to explore our trade relationship with China and the eleven members of ASEAN. 

Click through here: https://platypuseconomics.com/stata/trading_places_worksheet_6.pdf and you can work through the steps I followed, and build your statistical mastery.

Donald Trump's trade representative Jamison Greer thinks about trade like a litigator: clients, injuries, bad actors, and remedies. Justin Wolfers takes Greer's own words from his recent interview with The Daily and shows why that worldview rests on muddled thinking about what trade actually is &mdash; and why it ends up costing you.
In this Diving In episode, Justin lays out the tells and discusses the bottom line. The numbers are blunt: New York Fed research finds roughly 90% of the tariff burden falls on U.S. firms and consumers, and low-income households bear a disproportionate share. Census data shows imports from China fell &mdash; but rose nearly one-for-one from the rest of the region. A lot of trade just changed addresses.
By the end you'll have a portable BS detector for any trade argument &mdash; from Trump, Vance, Greer, or your uncle at Thanksgiving.
The Daily Episode With Jamieson Greer: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/podcasts/the-daily/more-trump-tariffs-are-coming.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/podcasts/the-daily/more-trump-tariffs-are-coming.html</a>&nbsp;
🔒 Get 20% off DeleteMe by going to https://joindeleteme.com/WOLFERS and use code WOLFERS to protect your privacy! 🙌
Subscribe on YouTube 👉 https://youtube.com/platypuseconomics Subscribe on Substack 👉 https://newsletter.platypuseconomics.com
Follow on Social Media @PlatypusEconomics and @JustinWolfers
One more thing: When I create these videos, I often crunch a few numbers in Stata, with whom I&rsquo;ve got a paid partnership. Today, I used it to explore our trade relationship with China and the eleven members of ASEAN.&nbsp;
Click through here: <a href="https://platypuseconomics.com/stata/trading_places_worksheet_6.pdf">https://platypuseconomics.com/stata/trading_places_worksheet_6.pdf</a> and you can work through the steps I followed, and build your statistical mastery.

The Lawyer’s Theory of Trade | Diving In

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/8c4f388c-1df7-4840-9c34-b495013ba005/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

Elasticity - What will you do when prices change?

In 1 playlist(s)

Platypus Economics with Justin Wolfers

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips