Last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump did not have the authority to enact tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On the same day, the White House announced a new 10% tariff under a different section of the law. But wait, a day after that, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was raising it to 15%. So…what is actually happening?
Justin Wolfers, Economist and Professor, joins Jen to try and clean up the mess of Trump’s economic policy. The two discuss how—despite Pam Bondi’s boast—the U.S. stock market is lagging behind the rest of the world’s and where the growth in the job market is actually coming from.
Make sure to subscribe to Wolfers’ YouTube channel here!
Justin Wolfers is a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Justin is also a contributing columnist for the New York Times and the host of the popular podcast Think Like an Economist.
The following transcript has been edited for clarity
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief for The Contrarian. To help figure out what Donald Trump said… no, no one can figure out what Donald Trump said. To talk about economic issues that Donald Trump touched on, we have, the wonderful Justin Wolfers. Welcome, Justin.
Justin Wolfers
Pleasure to see you here, mate.
Jen Rubin
Yes, he is, of course, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan. Let’s talk about tariffs. I am confused. Are they 10%? Are they 15%? Do they change over a course of a few days? What’s going on?
Justin Wolfers
So, like, I just want to explain to your audience, Jen’s confusion is legitimate. It’s for real. We’re all confused. And I know that sounds weird to say, the signature economic policy of a guy who started running for president 10 years ago, how could it possibly be unclear? Here’s how. The Supreme Court ruled about two-thirds of Trump’s tariffs are illegal. We all remember that, last Friday. Immediately, the president declared, and it was… that they were illegal under a certain, legal authority. So the president went to a different legal authority, declared a balance of payments crisis, and immediately imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff On every country.
Then, he went to sleep, having done enormous amounts of economic analysis, I’m sure he was tired. And woke up the next day. Funnily enough, I was at a conference talking about tariffs, and while I’m on stage talking about the problem of the 10% tariff. He sent out a social media post, And… Said, effective immediately, 10% became 15. Now, the original 10% message was a presidential proclamation that’s on the White House website. It said this goes into effect midnight, 12.01am on Tuesday. So the Saturday Post was not a presidential proclamation, but it was a tweet by a president. Says 15%.
Either way, it went into effect on Tuesday, and we’re now several days past that. And the question is, is what the President said the law, or is what the President said the law? And no one knows. Like, you can go to the White House website, and you can click, click, click, click, and they’re not telling. And I’ve had journalists calling me saying, which is it? And they can’t get the White House to answer. What I do know is that Anna Swanson, who is an excellent trade journalist at the New York Times, wrote a column saying it’s 10. And she says that’s what Customs and Border Patrol are doing.
I believe her. Question is, how did we get there? One possibility is… We are already at our first taco, of the post-Supreme Court regime. that the president said 10%, Raised it to 15%. Taco, Trump always chickens out, chickens out, and came back to 10. So it could be this was the silent taco, and rather than coming out and saying, you know, my bad, 15, just kidding.
Another possibility. I was talking to a friend who’s a lawyer. This—And they said, I don’t give legal advice, so I’m gonna pass along their non-legal advice. This authority from Congress. It doesn’t say, do whatever you want! It says, if there’s a balance of payments crisis. Get your wonks to do some wonky analysis, and you’re allowed to impose a tariff of up to 15%. For up to 150 days. But it’s whatever the situation requires. So the President’s first proclamation says, I asked my nerds to crunch some numbers, they came up with 10%. The next day, he slept, and nothing else changed. So it’d be very difficult to say, I asked my nerds again, and they changed their mind, even though the state of the world didn’t change. So, in fact, a proclamation saying 15% is the optimal number stands directly at odds with a proclamation saying 10% is the optimal number. So maybe he got it over his skis. No one knows. But if you think. The largest economy in the world should actually write down and be serious about what its tariff policy is. I’m sorry to disappoint you.
Jen Rubin
Yeah. Let me ask a more basic question. Do we even have a balance of payments crisis? We have… a trade deficit with certain countries. You can argue whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but that’s not what a balance of payments crisis is. I always thought, silly me, that you kind of have, equilibrium. Stuff goes out, money comes in, or money goes out, and stuff comes in. Do we have a balance of payments problem?
Justin Wolfers
Okay, so I want to give an economist’s answer and a lawyer’s answer, and then I want you to remember I’m an economist. So, look, a balance of… wow, no one wants to know about national income and product accounting. But that’s what we’re about to do. Lean in, this is gonna get exciting!
In the old days of fixed exchange rates, the US dollar could be redeemed for gold. And when the Australian dollar was fixed, the Australian dollar could be redeemed for US dollars. That meant—let me talk about the Australia case, because it’s easier. That meant any time you’ve got Australian dollars, you can just walk up to the central bank and say, could I have some US dollars? That meant they had to keep a whole stash of US dollars in the vault. And if they didn’t have any US dollars left in the vault. Then they can’t defend the currency peg anymore, and you have problems. That’s what we would have called a balance of payments crisis, that it literally doesn’t balance. There’s more dollars going out of the vault than dollars coming into the vault.
The US was slightly different because the US was the center of the global system after Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods is a hotel in New Hampshire, where they talked about this. So instead of… when you walk into the Australian Central Bank, you could always change your Aussie dollars for American dollars. In the US, it was you could change American dollars for gold. Similar problem, though. If you walked in and said, I want my gold bars, and there was no gold left. Then the whole system collapses. So Nixon knocked us off. that approach. We no longer have a fixed exchange rate.
We have a floating exchange rate. And what that means is, every time someone buys US dollars. They have to buy it from someone. Like me. I might be about to go overseas. And I’ll sell them my US dollars so that I can buy euros so that I can buy French cheese, which is magnificent. So what that means is, necessarily, just… There’s no complications here. The balance of payments balances. When people exchange US dollars for Aussie dollars or for any other currency, there’s always a buyer and always a seller. The dollar still lives. We never have to go into the back room, the vault of the Fed, to figure out what’s going on. So there’s one story that says… Trump is using this new power, Section 122 of the Something Something Act.
Jen Rubin
Yes.
Justin Wolfers
You can tell I’m not a very good lawyer. So there’s one story that says the power that Trump’s relying on is for dealing with a balance of payments crisis. It was written to deal with Nixon, it was written to deal with fixed exchange rates. Okay, that’s the economist’s story. You’re absolutely right, there is no balance of payments crisis. Because, literally, can I draw you a graph of the American balance of payments for the past 30 years? It’s zero. Each and every day.
Jen Rubin
Yeah. No deficit.
Justin Wolfers
No surplus. It’s amazing. They don’t even collect data on it anymore, because it has to be zero.
Okay. That’s the economist answer, which is great. A beautiful piece of economic history there, Jen. We now know what our grandparents used to learn about economics, which is about balance of payments, deficits, but because our dollar now floats on the… you can buy and sell them in foreign exchange markets. This is now something we don’t bother teaching. Or learning. Okay. Now let’s come back to the lawyer. Why do we have to think about this? There’s a question… When the act was written, it says balance of payments, crisis. Now, I’m just an economist, so I think a balance of payments crisis is a balance of payments crisis. But I’m told lawyers like to misunderstand economics terms. And so there exists a view… so among… there exists a view, this is the one Jen’s getting at. That, because there’s no balance of payments crisis, this set of tariffs is also illegal.
And there can’t be a balance of payments crisis. Impossible. There exists a view that the legislators who wrote Balance of Payments Crisis meant current account crisis. Now, the current account is how much more money we send overseas compared to how much we as Americans. Versus how much we as Americans get back. And we do have a current account deficit, and the president’s obsessed by it. So there is a view that, in fact, he has the right power, because the current account is half of… Accounting is so boring. The current account is one of the two accounts, or three accounts, depending on how you do it, in the balance of payments. So some people say, well, a balance of payments crisis is impossible, but we could have a current account crisis. Now, let me point something out.
We’ve had a current account deficit now 50 years in a row. My friend Geeta Kopenath, who most recently was Managing Director, first managing director of the International Monetary Fund, so sort of deals with current account deficit crises for a living. says there is no chance you would say the US has a current account crisis. So, even on the expansive view. This doesn’t apply. Now. I have read lawyers, and I don’t know a good lawyer from a bad lawyer, but I’m gonna tell you what I know. I’ve read lawyers who say the legislation says if the president says… It’s a current… a balance of payments crisis. Boom, boom, boom. There’s a prior question, according to some lawyers. Can the pre… if the president says it, is it reviewable? This is the sort of stupidity only lawyers could come up with, because why would the legislators have written the word crisis if what they really meant was whenever the president feels like it?
I don’t understand the law, I don’t pretend to understand the law, but… what I… all of that boils down to is, I think the following’s true, Jen. There are questions about the legality of what the president’s doing. And it may be illegal, it may not be.
And now, can we go back to the economics, please? Because I want to point one important thing out. This new power only gives the President 150 days of tariffs before he has to go to Congress to get it re-upped. Congress will not do that. Congress doesn’t like dumb ideas, and it really doesn’t like them just before an election. Some people say to me, oh, well, couldn’t he then turn it off for one day and turn it on for another 150 days? Again, I’m not a lawyer, but look, even the law’s not that stupid. But that then raises the question, how productive is a 150-day tariff? Jen, if you wanted to ask me that question, I could answer it. Yeah, I don’t believe people move factories for 150 days simply to avoid a 10… maybe it’s a 15% tariff, I don’t think that happens in the real world. Right.
Jen Rubin
Yeah.
Justin Wolfers
So, there’s no problem for which a 150-day tariff is a solution. Yes. You’re not going to be able to call President Xi in China and say, I need the following concessions, or else I’ll put tariffs on you. Partly because this power looks like you have to put tariffs on everyone.
Jen Rubin
And partly because President Xi knows how to count to 150.
Justin Wolfers
And you just wait. And so it’s not a very effective threat either.
Jen Rubin
Exactly. I have one bit of consolation, and that is, of late, the Supreme Court has actually been taking words for their actual meaning. When Trump, for example, folks, tried to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court looked around, and they could not find any Venezuelan tanks invading us, and therefore, that was a basis for striking this down, so… Let’s hope they keep at that, but that’s also a question mark. One other thing that he said about tariffs, and I know we’re obsessed with tariffs, folks, because it is the stupidest aspect of his economic policy, and the stupidest economic move, at least in my adult lifetime. He actually said that he wanted tariffs to replace the income tax. Is that even possible? and… Wouldn’t that be a really, really bad idea if it were even possible?
Justin Wolfers
So, let me explain why some people claim it’s possible, and then explain why it’s not. In the early history of this country, in fact, most of the federal government revenue was tariffs. We didn’t used to have an income tax. It used to be old tariffs. And you might think to yourself, oh, you’re beauty. Let’s do that again. The thing to remember is in the early history of this country, the federal government basically didn’t exist. Yeah, almost all power rested with the states. We had a federal post office. And a couple of blokes at the border. And so, if your federal government is a couple of blokes at the border and a guy delivering mail, you can totally fund that out of tariffs. Different question is whether you should, so let me point out a couple of things here. If you’re doing it out of tariffs, that’s a consumption tax, right? It’s a spending tax as opposed to an income tax. Some people are in favor of consumption taxes. Some people point out they’re incredibly regressive. It’s not just a consumption tax, though.
It’s a consumption tax that’s especially large on some items, and especially small on others. What that in turn does, what you generally want is to distort people’s choices as little as possible. And when you have such a spiky. approach to taxation, this good gets it, you know, the Spanish olive oil gets it, the Mexican doesn’t, blah blah blah blah blah. There’s a lot of distortions, and we’ll end up eating the wrong olive oil. And our taste buds suffer. So, I don’t think it’s a particularly good… tax base, even if you could do it. Now, could we do it? Now, here’s the point where you just need to understand. Literally impossible. Here’s the intuition. there’s something called the tax base.
A tax base is basically how much money’s in the bucket that the government could take. For an income tax, the tax base is all income. All income’s tons of money. Now, in the US, we spend about one-seventh of our income on imports. Tariffs only tax imports. So the bucket is one-seventh as big. So therefore, if the bucket’s 1 seventh as big, to raise as much money, you’d have to have a rate that was seven times larger. Okay, well, what’s the income tax rate? What’s the average income tax rate? Probably 35%? So 7 times that is 210… 245%. Oh, wait a minute, here’s a problem. If you put a 245% tax on imports, how many imports are you gonna buy? None. This is actually Laffer Curve logic in a domain where it makes sense.
Jen Rubin
Yes.
Justin Wolfers
And so you’ve got a smaller bucket, you have to tax it at a much higher rate. Because you tax it at a much higher rate, you actually take less.
And so, basically, we can’t fund much… literally, it’s a matter of mathematics, it’s arithmetic. Can’t fund much of the federal government with this. You’d have to give up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National defense. Unemployment insurance and most of the federal government in order to do it this way.
Jen Rubin
You sort of wonder how self-respecting people let the president go out to say things like that, but let’s put that off to the side for a moment, because he does whatever the hell he wants. Let’s talk about jobs, which is, actually something, that people really should be very concerned about. Trump likes to say, all the jobs I’ve created are in the private sector, because he’s… find so many people from the public sector. But it’s a little bit more complicated. Where are the jobs being created, and how’s the rest of the economy if you exclude the area that it is expressed.
Justin Wolfers
Yeah, when Trump says all the job growth has been in the private sector. That’s just another way of saying, I fired people from the public sector. Fair enough. Okay, well, I mean, do you think that’s a good idea? That’s generally a question for folks who are listening and thinking about this. Because it’s not always a good idea. If I fired useless people doing useless things, fantastic. If I fired vaccine researchers who were going to discover the cure to the next pandemic, so we don’t have to go through… another hell like we did in 2020, I think that’s a very, very short-sighted view. Now it turns out all of the private sector job growth has been in the healthcare sector.
I mean, if you want to call it private industry, you kind of can, but really, is that your recovery? And so that’s sort of the big talking point. One thing I should say is, so it’s not factories that he promised to bring back. And it’s not computer programmers, and it’s not the next generation of AI, it’s people working in healthcare. Now. Is that just more… the American healthcare system is notoriously unproductive, inefficient. Is it just more people writing cover-your-ass letters for lawyers? That would be bad if we’ve got more of that. Or is it more people providing genuine care? It’s actually really hard to tell.
Partly, we don’t really know what’s going on. Some part of this is the aging of the American population. But there are other deeper questions, like how much is this, changes in the immigrant In the availability of internet labour, how much of this is sort of a post-COVID rebound, and so on. Now, we can actually go a step further. Which is, you can look within a subsector of health, and you can look within a sub-sub-sector of health.
The following facts are true. Since Liberation Day, we’ve created 169,000 jobs in what’s called individual and family services. Individual and family services, you’re like, oh, that doesn’t quite sound like the engine of prosperity that the president’s been telling us about. Well, individual and family services, I just need… I need to read this, because it’s so hard for me to remember, to tell you the truth. Individual and family services comprises of establishments primarily engaged in providing non-residential social assistance. To children and youth, the elderly, persons with disability. And all other individuals and families. I am a bleeding-heart liberal, I love helping families, I love providing social assistance, but I have a funny feeling this is not what the President was talking about. So, individual and family services grew 169,000 since Liberation Day. Outside of this social assistance group. The rest of the economy lost jobs. Lost 27,000 jobs. More than 100% of all jobs created, and the mathematics of that, this is possible. We’re created providing non-residential social assistance to children and youth, the elderly persons with disabilities, and all other individuals and families.
Jen Rubin
By the way, those are the very sorts of things that Medicaid and Medicare cover. So, calling it the private sector is a little sketchy, frankly, because how much of that is being paid by private insurers, and how much is being paid by the government? If it’s the government, then none of those jobs are created in the private sector, but… I’ll leave that for another day. Last topic I want to talk to you about, because it’s another Trumpian boast, is that the stock market has never been higher. And I want to ask, two questions about that. One, How representative of the stock market, is the larger economy, or putting it the other way. what percentage of people are in the market? Does this really mean a golden age of prosperity for everyone? And secondly. By how much? And are other people doing as well or better?
Justin Wolfers
Great. So, Jen, I do some number of talking to people on their very sophisticated podcasts, like yours, and some amount of TV interviews, and time and again, through the last year, people have said, oh, well, if things are so bad, the standard Republican talking point, if things are so bad, why is the market up so much? And… that sounds like a very… convincing argument. The market is up, I want to be crystal clear. Dow Jones did hit 50,000. Fantastic. Stocks rose 16%. Now, here’s an annoying thing economists do. We always say, compared to what? Right? So… It turns out… that… Yes, the Dow, and in fact the US market, measured in a bunch of different ways, rose roughly 15% or 16% between Inauguration Day and the present. That’s true. How’d everyone else do? Well… there are stock market indices that measure the rest of the world except the US. Over the same period, That index rose 38%. 38. Elsewhere. 16 here. That is a bigger margin. than Seattle beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. And it wasn’t a very interesting Super Bowl.
Jen Rubin
Damn.
Justin Wolfers
So, the question you might ask is, if Trump or Trumpism were good for the economy, given everything else that’s going on with the world. We would expect American stocks to outperform the rest of the world. So you’re allowed to draw the inference at this point. We’re lagging behind the rest of the world. What explains American exceptionalism, in this case American underperformance? And this is purely over the period since Inauguration Day. Now, I don’t know the answer. But, I could imagine a bright spark. would have hypotheses about things that have been different in the American economy since Inauguration Day that haven’t affected other countries. Now, I want to go a step further than this. Here, I was just comparing the US to the rest of the world. It turns out you can just take individual countries. So if you take the G7, in the G7, Our stock market comes last.
And in fact, I can take every developed country for which MSCI creates comparable indices, 23 developed countries. And… a lot of them are doing really wrong. Remember, the US rose 16%, right? But what do we see happening in other countries? Austria rose 86%, Spain 86%, Finland 63%, Ireland 61%, Italy 53, Belgium 52%, Hong Kong 50, Netherlands 40… I could bore you right now, couldn’t I? I do want to point out our friends, the Canadians, their stock market rose 39%, despite the fact the President has been doing everything he can do to clobber them. If you line up these 23 countries, the United States is coming 21st out of 23. I was raised by a flinty, tough mother. My mum would have called it third last.
What’s going on, mate? Now you might say, well, yeah, but we’re coming 21st, we’re beating two others. Who are they? Denmark. Its stock market has fallen over this period. Denmark, a huge chunk of the Danish stock market is Novo Nordisk. They’ve been having trouble with their diet drugs. So basically, a problem with a GLP-1 drug is the reason we’re beaten Denmark. And the other country we’re beating is New Zealand. And I’m an Australian. And because I’m an Australian, I always have to say mean things about New Zealand. So if your greatest boast is that you beat the country that has the second or third best fat drugs, and you beat New Zealand. I gotta say, you’re not really in the race.
Jen Rubin
Yeah. How big is the stock market compared to the general economy? A lot of people have 401Ks, but there are a lot more people who don’t. What percentage of the population does that even affect?
Justin Wolfers
Boy, there you go, asking me facts I can’t remember off the top of my head. So directly holding stock, not many Americans do. And by the way, it would be bad practice. You should buy well-diversified index funds. But many of us have index funds. Many of us have retirement funds, so this does affect many of us. A different version of your question, Jen, is. how good of a barometer is the stock market for the well-being of the American people?
And I think if you think about the Trump agenda. It’s about making American firms more profitable. It’s corporate tax cuts, it’s tax cuts for the rich, it’s deregulation, and so on. So you can think about the world as being, you know, there’s existing big companies, there’s companies that are yet to be born, there’s small companies, and there’s workers. Right? The Trump agenda, if it’s helping anyone, it’s these big existing companies. They’re the ones who are invited to the White House. It’s the big public companies which can call the president and ask for a favor, whereas the small business in the garage can’t.
So, the point then is, no, the stock market is not the economy. But it covers the part of the economy that the president helps the most. So, the reality is, for you and I, and for folks in our audience, if there were a stock market describing your life as opposed to the success of big American corporations. It would likely tell an even more pessimistic story. Now, I want to come back and defend the stock market as a measure, because I do think it’s useful. Of course, the stock market’s not the economy, that’s the point of your question. But, unlike any other economic measure, the stock market’s forward-looking. When people buy stocks, they’re thinking about the future profitability of the company that they’re buying. They’re not just talking about today. And so, if what your fear was, was that the president has undermined the set of institutions that are the foundation of American prosperity, and he’s creating costs that are going to be felt for a generation. You would expect to see that in the stock market, even if you didn’t see it in next quarter’s GDP. And so that’s why I do think looking at the stock market is useful.
But I think once you do that, you start to get very depressed, remember 3816? Rather than excited, 16, what a big number.
Jen Rubin
I want to end on something that has something to do with economics, but it has more to do with simply being a human being. You are a immigrant. You’re from Australia. How did the portion of the speech where he’s talking about Somalian pirates, and he’s talking about murderers, and all the rest of it, how did that strike you as someone who is not a native-born American?
Justin Wolfers
I thought it was disgusting. It churned my stomach. I was actually born in Papua New Guinea. So officially a shithole country? I thought the way that he demonized others Was something we’d never raise our kids with. If a kid said that at my kid’s school, they’d be sending the principal. I… we have… Decades of global history. World leaders who speak that way about others. Who dehumanize them. Who other them, who make them sound like animals, who create fear about them. Those… that set of world leaders, it never ends well.
I appreciate your question, Jen, because I often am asked to speak as an economist. And what we should never lose sight of is each and every one of us is a moral being. And you… as I have to decide how we feel about this form of rhetoric. It’s at the point I didn’t let my kids watch the State of the Union. And I… I just wanna, as a statement about the level of the discourse, I just want that to sink in, that the President laying out his agenda for the next term is contemptible and beneath the morality of regular folks. Look, the United States has… Every right to make its own immigration policies. But the form of explicit degradation. Of others is not, in my view, morally acceptable. and I… I’m gonna put the economist hat back on, and just point one thing out. It’s also based on a falsehood. The… much of the president’s claim is you have to be worried about immigrant crime. And always what he’ll do is he’ll tell a story. Now, when a politician tells a story instead of giving a fact, a statistic, that’s the tell. Yes, there is an immigrant who’s murdered people. I guarantee it.
There’s a non-immigrant who has as well. But everything that social scientists have collected so far actually tell us that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. Which means if you want a day that involves less crime, Organise your day. To spend more time with immigrants. Surround yourself. with more immigrants. So, the facts point in the opposite direction, but I just hope the folks at home Understand… Why what was being said was being said. When you’ve got good arguments, you lead with them. And if all you’ve got is base racism. That tells you something about the rest of the argument you’ve got. Sorry if I sounded moralising, mate, but I…
Jen Rubin
No.
Justin Wolfers
It’s…
Jen Rubin
That’s why I asked you. That is, I think you’re speaking in… tone and substance, what many Americans felt, and why I suspect very few Americans actually watched the whole thing. Because it’s disgusting, and Americans do have, someplace, a moral core. But I would say this, as we close out what is, again, more fun than I’m allowed to have during a interview with an economist. there is, I think, a… rising dissatisfaction in the country with exactly what you’re describing.
And, I think, that is a good thing, that is something we should all, foster. And, frankly, if You were gonna hang out with immigrants all day long. You’d also be hanging out with people who have a higher workforce. participation rate. You’d also be higher… hanging out with young, cool people, as opposed to a bunch of old fogies like me. And you’d also be hanging out with people who have higher rates of home ownership. So, there are many things worse than hanging out with a bunch of immigrants. But I have the most exciting news, which is actually your news.
Justin Wolfers
Oh, yeah.
Jen Rubin
Yes! What are you about to do, Justin?
Justin Wolfers
So, Jen, you’ve inspired me. I… Want to teach the world economics. I think that’s the most important thing I can do right now. I want to look straight down the lens at lots of people who are trying to make sense of the world right now, and it is so very confusing. And I can’t give you armor against all the bad things that are happening, but I can give you a different superpower, which is the ability to understand. And so… I’m really very excited about this, so you’ve… I’m launching. Not fully launched, soft launched, but if you go and have a look, I now have a YouTube channel, at Justin Wolfers. Hopefully, I’ll join you over on Substack soon. I’m gonna… every, you know, every… every chance that I can get, I’m gonna try and find opportunities like today’s opportunity. You saved me from having to put together a video today, Jen.
But it’s one where I want to take everything that I’ve learned, and share. I’m so blessed. I was taught economics by… so many amazing people, and it’s been such a great joy for me, and it’s helped me understand the world, and it’s empowered me, and I want to share that with folks at home. So, if that sounds interesting, come find me, at Justin Wolfers on YouTube, and all the socials, and all of that.
Jen Rubin
I think it is going to be fascinating, and I think we need more people explaining more stuff, because the ratio of good information to bad information is not satisfactory in this country currently. So, we wish you every success, I’m sure it’s going to be great, and maybe you’ll still come back and visit us now and then.
All right, take care, Justin. Great talking to you. Take care.
Justin Wolfers
Thank you.
