My old friend Larry Kotlikoff thinks that the U.S. is carrying an unsustainable debt burden, social security as we know it is on the verge of collapse, and Trump’s tariffs make no economic sense at all. As an outstanding economist with expertise in many different areas of his discipline, he’s in a position to know. And what’s more, Larry believes that most other economists share his views. I have to admit, when I put on my green eyeshade and look at the numbers, it’s hard to disagree with his general assessment of the issues.
The Glenn Show is almost entirely audience-supported, so to those of us who are already full subscribers, let me extend a heartfelt thank you. And if you’re not yet a full subscriber, please consider becoming one. The Glenn Show can only do what it does through the generosity of viewers and listeners. For a mere $6/month or $50/year, you’ll get access to weekly livestreams, monthly Q&A episodes with John McWhorter, commenting privileges, access to the full Substack archives, and other exclusive bonus content.
Larry thinks that economists ought to maintain a politically neutral stance and communicate directly with the public in order to circumvent accusations of partisanship that now contaminate even seemingly objective analyses. In that spirit, I invited him onto last week’s livestream to talk through the issues. In this segment of the show, Larry walks us through debt, social security, tariffs, personal finance, fiscal policy, and China’s seemingly unstoppable march to becoming the dominant world economic power.
In theory, I’m all for Larry’s endorsement of political neutrality in economics. However, this very conversation underscores the practical difficulties of such a position. Larry has extremely harsh words for Donald Trump. Even if his assessment derives only from his observation of Trump’s economic policies, it’s easy to imagine that Trump-friendly but persuadable people could hear Larry (or any number of other experts) refer to the president as a “moron” and decide that he’s too politically biased to trust, even if his analysis stands up to objective scrutiny. Even an economist with no political agenda who scrupulously abstains from any kind of political value judgment may find his work being championed or pilloried by one party or another, or one faction or another within a party. He will then have become “politicized,” despite his best efforts.
Nevertheless, I think Larry’s idea that economists should do more to communicate directly with the public is a good one. I ought to—I’ve been doing it for decades. (In fact, I recently went on Larry’s podcast to talk about the history of The Glenn Show.) When a basic economic issue is being garbled, economists ought to step in to educate the public. And where there is disagreement among economists on specific issues—as there usually is—the debate ought to be brought to the public in terms any reasonably intelligent person can understand. I plan on putting my Rolodex to work and doing more of that here on The Glenn Show.
And I’m curious: what economic issues would all of you like to hear about on TGS? Drop your thoughts in the comments!
Of course, you’ll only be able to do that if you’re a full subscriber. So if you’re not yet a subscriber, please consider becoming one.
