Economics Happy Hour Podcast

Matt & Jadrian

Economics Happy Hour is a podcast where two economics educators talk through current events, teaching, and research over a drink. Conversations are unscripted and focused on how economists actually think about the world and the classroom. www.econhappyhour.com

  1. 5d ago

    Should We Abolish Business Schools?

    Should universities get rid of their business schools? A recent New York Times OpEd argues that business education encourages students to prioritize profits over the public good, but we’re not convinced the case is that simple. We debate the value of business degrees, the advantages of organizing programs within business schools, and whether universities should rethink how they prepare students for their careers. Along the way, we consider whether business schools are actually doing some things better than the rest of higher education. In this episode, we talk about: * Whether business schools prioritize private profits at the expense of society. * What business schools offer that other academic departments don’t. * How restrictive degree requirements can limit students’ opportunities to explore other interests. * Whether entrepreneurship and business education contribute to economic growth and improvements in living standards. * What other colleges could learn from business schools about internships, alumni networks, and career preparation. If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 We’re keeping things simple this week. Jadrian is working his way through his back-of-the-fridge beer collection with a Sam Adams Breakaway Blonde,. Matt is embracing Oktoberfest season with a Saranac Oktoberfest from a variety pack he picked up a few weeks ago. Our semesters are going well, with Jadrian finally getting a break from conference travel while Matt has been busy with the AACSB Deans Conference in Orlando. Jadrian will head down to Houston for the Southern Economic Association Meetings while Matt is preparing for a Thanksgiving trip to London with students. Name That Stat 📊 We’ve got two numbers this week, both connected to business education. Matt looked at how many undergraduate students in the United States are currently studying business. Jadrian pulled data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on which business majors had the highest rate of unemployment for recent college grads. Show Notes A recent New York Times opinion piece by a professor at the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School makes a pretty bold argument: it’s time to shut down business schools. The author argues that business education has become too focused on maximizing profits and efficiency while ignoring the broader consequences for society. He worries that students enter college wanting to make the world a better place but leave business school focused on making money instead. We think there are some legitimate concerns worth considering, but we’re not convinced abolishing business schools is the answer. There is a question of whether business schools need to exist as separate academic units. After all, students can study economics, statistics, and communication outside a business school. What does a university gain by putting accounting, finance, marketing, and management all together in one unit? A lot of business schools benefit from a shared curriculum, strong alumni networks, mentoring programs, and an emphasis on experiential learning. Those connections can create opportunities that would be harder for individual departments to organize. But if those benefits are so great for a unit, why don’t other colleges adopt those practices? If business schools are so good at preparing students for careers, shouldn’t the rest of the university be paying attention? While Matt points to a shared curriculum as a benefit of business education, Jadrian argues that restrictive degree requirements actually harm students’ ability to explore additional interests. Some business schools have so many prescribed courses that there’s little room to explore other disciplines. A student who switches into a business major after a semester or two might need to delay graduation to get through all the requirements. (Matt note: This is not the case at Susquehanna.) Some universities, including Susquehanna, have recently reduced their business school's required curriculum to give students more flexibility. We both agree that college should be about more than preparing for a first job. Students should have opportunities to discover new interests, pursue minors, and combine their professional goals with subjects they genuinely enjoy. The challenge is finding the right balance between preparing students for careers and giving them room to explore. But what about the author’s point that business education necessarily makes society worse off? Matt points to the extraordinary decline in global poverty over the past 250 years and argues that entrepreneurship, innovation, and improvements in productivity have played an enormous role in raising living standards. Businesses don’t just create profits for their owners; they also create products, services, and opportunities that benefit consumers and society. (See a letter Matt wrote in response to a similar call to abolish business schools in 2019.) Ultimately, we find ourselves more interested in improving business education than eliminating it. There are legitimate questions about curriculum design, the role of ethics, the value of case studies, and how much freedom students should have to explore other disciplines. But there are also plenty of things business schools do exceptionally well, particularly when it comes to connecting classroom learning with professional opportunities. Maybe the most productive question isn’t whether we should abolish business schools, but what the rest of higher education could learn from them. What do you think? If you could redesign the business school at your university, what would you keep, what would you change, and what might you borrow from other academic departments? We’d love to hear your perspective, especially if you’ve studied or taught in a business school. Leave us a comment and keep the conversation going! After his opinion piece was published, Marquis’ publicist reached out about him appearing on Economics Happy Hour. We decided not to invite him on because we didn’t want the episode to become an opportunity to promote his book, The Profiteers: How Business Privatizes Profit and Socializes Costs. Instead, we wanted to have our own conversation about the arguments he raised. We’ve linked the article in the show notes, and we invite you to read it, consider his perspective, and decide for yourself whether you want to buy the book. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Matt brings us a scene from Game of Thrones featuring Tyrion Lannister and Grey Worm. When Grey Worm expresses distrust of the people they’re dealing with, Tyrion explains that he doesn’t necessarily trust them either, but he does trust their self-interest. It’s a nice connection to one of the central arguments of our episode: people pursuing their own interests can sometimes generate benefits for others. Of course, economists would add an important caveat about having the right institutions and incentives in place. Jadrian goes with a classic scene from The Office in which Michael Scott visits a business school to share his wisdom with students. Rather than encouraging them to study hard, Michael tears apart a textbook and tells the class that real-world experience matters more than book learning. It’s exactly the kind of advice you’d expect from Michael Scott, and it raises a question that’s surprisingly relevant to our discussion. How much of business education should happen in a classroom, and how much should come from actually working in the business world? Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  2. Oct 15

    The 2026 Nobel Prize in Economics

    What does this year’s economics Nobel have to do with your savings account or your next big purchase? We unpack Robert Hall and Michael Woodford’s contributions to understanding how expectations shape spending and economic policy. Along the way, we discuss consumption smoothing, why central banks explain their plans, and whether people really think as far ahead as economic models suggest. We also look at what prediction markets can tell us about Nobel favorites and why a quieter, more stable economy can be an achievement that’s easy to overlook. In this episode, we talk about: * What prediction markets did, and didn’t, tell us about the Nobel winners. * Why expected lifetime income matters for spending today. * How central banks use communication to influence expectations. * Whether everyday financial decisions match economists’ models. * Why better tools for stabilizing the economy matter beyond academia. If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 Jadrian grabbed a Richmond Lager from Hardywood Park Craft Brewery after a hectic day and had already started pouring before we hit record. Matt went seasonal with Saranac’s Festival Pils from its Oktoberfest variety pack, a departure from his usual IPA. We also caught up on fall break activities and upcoming presentations. Between everything going on, a little time off (and a good beer) was certainly welcome. Name That Stat 📊 We initially skipped the guessing game, but we realized partway through the episode would be a good chance to talk about citations for our laureates. Each of them has garnered more than 70,000 citations for their work over their careers: Show Notes This year’s economics Nobel went to Robert Hall and Michael Woodford for their work on the microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic stabilization. That’s a pretty technical way of saying that individual households' and businesses' decisions help policymakers respond to recessions, inflation, and economic shocks. Speaking of expectations, we actually had the chance to see the people prediction markets thought had the best odds of winning the prize the day before the awards were announced. Neither had an especially clear favorite. Woodford appeared near the top of Polymarket’s predictions, while Hall wasn’t among the leading names. Neither of us would describe ourselves as macroeconomists, but we wanted to take a closer look at what made their research so important. Hall’s work gives us a way to think about why spending doesn’t simply rise and fall with every paycheck. Building on the permanent income hypothesis, the idea is that people consider their longer-term resources when deciding how much to consume. New information can change that plan immediately. If you learn today that you’ll lose your job in six months, you probably won’t wait six months to adjust your spending. The important distinction is between a temporary change and news that changes what you expect to earn over the long run. One of Woodford’s main contributions looked at why central banks spend so much time explaining their decisions. Monetary policy works partly through what people expect interest rates and economic conditions to look like in the future. That makes credible communication part of the policy itself. A change in interest rates won’t affect every household in the same way, but it can make a big difference for someone buying a home or a business deciding whether to borrow and invest. The natural question then is how far ahead do people actually think? We both have personal experiences where we’ve made poor financial decisions that affect our futures, but there are also plenty of people saving for a down payment, borrowing while in college, or creating an emergency fund. It all involves thinking about the future. Expectations matter, even when people have limited attention, limited borrowing options, or habits that are hard to change. The biggest payoff from their research has been a more stable economy than most of us truly appreciate, but we did want to consider what their work means for someone who isn’t building economic models. It helps if people slow down and try to distinguish a temporary financial bump from a lasting change before completing changing spending habits. That’s not to imply that every shock will disappear or that every household can easily absorb one, but it does help explain why the duration of a change matters. We’d love to hear your thoughts! When has something you expected to happen in the future changed how you spent or saved today? Leave a comment with your example. We’d also love our macroeconomist listeners to help sharpen the connections between those everyday decisions and the bigger policy picture. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 A former Virginia Tech graduate student sent Jadrian a scene from Emily in Paris in which the main character learns that being fired doesn’t necessarily mean immediate dismissal. Her coworkers explain that completing the termination process could take months. It’s a useful example to talk about differences across labor markets. Matt shared a scene from Schitt’s Creek, where the Rose family loses its fortune, but one member finds an active credit card and uses it to buy expensive eye cream. Matt connected the scene to consumption smoothing since David is trying to preserve a piece of his old lifestyle despite a dramatic change in his circumstances. Maybe he’s expecting the family’s financial situation to improve, or maybe he just really wants that eye cream? Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  3. Sep 24

    The 1990s Economy: From Recession to Internet Boom

    The 1990s began with a recession that helped make the economy central to the 1992 presidential election. What followed was a long expansion, falling unemployment, and eventually federal budget surpluses. We weigh NAFTA against the rise of the internet as the decade’s most consequential economic change. Along the way, we look at what the dot-com boom built, even after its most famous companies disappeared. In this episode, we talk about: * How the early recession shaped the 1992 election * Why falling unemployment challenged economists’ expectations * NAFTA, budget surpluses, and the internet as contenders for the decade’s defining change * What survived the dot-com boom after companies like Pets.com did not * How new technology changed everyday life and the way people thought about investing If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 Matt went with his trusty Centennial IPA: tasty, reasonably priced, and, by his account, an economist’s dream. Jadrian’s first choice was a cider that had been placed a little too close to the ice maker. A quick trip back upstairs led to a Sam Adams Cold Snap substitute. The replacement was much easier to drink; the plan for the cider was to let it thaw and mix it back together. Name That Stat 📊 We both stayed on theme for this week’s stat, but we went in two wildly different directions. Matt chipped in the market capitalization for one of the dot-com boom’s most famous companies. Jadrian stuck with the 90s, but went in a completely different direction by highlighting recent survey results showing that Millennials and Gen Z picked the 1990s as the most fashionable decade. Show Notes The U.S. entered the 1990s after a long expansion, with inflation and unemployment well below the painful levels of the early 1980s. Then came a recession. Despite George H. W. Bush’s popularity after the Gulf War, unemployment was on the rise and the economy became a central issue in the 1992 election. “It’s the economy, stupid” captured the political moment. After that rough start, the picture changed. Unemployment kept falling through the decade, reaching roughly 4% by its end while inflation stayed low. That combination pushed economists to reconsider an assumption many had learned in class: that unemployment could not remain much below 6% without causing trouble. So what best defines the decade economically? We put three candidates on the table: NAFTA, federal budget surpluses, and the dot-com boom. NAFTA mattered, though its effects extended beyond the 1990s. The surpluses were striking, especially looking back from today. But the internet felt like the strongest answer for its lasting effect on how we live, work, and build businesses. The boom gave us new companies that would eventually vanish (like Pets.com), but the bigger impact was the money poured into internet companies that far exceeded expectations. The investment helped build infrastructure that later businesses could use. The future felt so uncertain at the time: dial-up connections, a household phone line tied up by the computer, and serious predictions that we might all browse the web through our televisions. The stock market had a long climb throughout the 1990s, and reinvesting dividends would have made people a fortune. A lot changed for people living in the 90s, from buying CDs and writing checks to getting a second phone line. There’s more to unpack, so we’ll return in a few weeks with a fresh episode that looks more closely at labor market shifts, how Americans saved and spent, and the decade’s policy choices. What change from the 1990s most reshaped your everyday life? Leave us a comment with the thing you remember noticing at the time. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Jadrian brought back a favorite Today Show clip where the presenters are trying to make sense of an email address by asking, “What is the internet?” It’s a charming reminder of how unfamiliar something so ordinary now felt in the mid-1990s. Matt gave a shout-out to Linda and Alan’s Yada Yada Yada Econ collection of Seinfeld clips. His favorite clip comes from the Soup Nazi episode to show how a distinctive product can give a seller some room to charge more. Jadrian’s favorite is the bottle-deposit scheme, where Kramer and Newman discover that a price difference only looks profitable until you account for the cost of getting the bottles to Michigan. Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  4. Sep 10

    How did 9/11 Change the Economy?

    Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, we look at a difficult question: can economics help us understand terrorism? We start with Gary Becker’s rational model of crime and Alan Krueger's research to consider the incentives, opportunity costs, and motivations behind terrorist activity. From there, we consider whether 9/11 was a “small” or “large” economic shock, looking at everything from financial markets and travel to government spending, immigration, and consumer behavior. In this episode, we talk about: * Whether the rational-choice framework economists use to study crime can tell us anything useful about terrorism * The case for viewing 9/11 as a relatively small short-run macroeconomic shock, and why that framing needs important context * How fear and uncertainty changed travel, spending, investment, and everyday behavior after the attacks * The longer-run economic consequences, including security and defense spending, immigration policy, health effects, and changes in government If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 Jadrian took a chance on a Boardwalk Orange Creamsicle that looked promising in the can and became much less promising as soon as it hit the glass. The smell was...not great. Fortunately, it tasted better than it smelled. Matt kept things simple with a light Moscow Mule. The drinks arrived amid the usual beginning-of-semester chaos combined with a short week thanks to Labor Day. Name That Stat 📊 We kept both stats tied to this week’s topic. Jadrian offered up the total amount of money the Transportation Security Administration spent in the most recent fiscal year. What started as a fairly crude response to the attacks has become part of an enormous security infrastructure that is now a normal part of flying in the United States. We then turned to financial markets. Matt offered up a measure of how much the Dow Jones fell during the first week of trading after September 11. The markets were initially closed for several days after the attacks, but investors had to process an extraordinary amount of fear and uncertainty all at once when they reopened. Show Notes Before getting into a summary of this week’s episode, we want to be clear about what this episode is and what it isn’t. September 11 was first and foremost a tragedy. Thousands of people were killed, families lost loved ones, first responders made extraordinary sacrifices, and the effects of that day continue to be felt 25 years later. Talking about the attacks through an economic lens isn’t meant to reduce those lives to statistics or suggest that GDP is the measure that matters most. We believe looking at this event through an economics lense gives us one additional way to ask questions about why terrorism happens and how an event like this can reshape the economy. We started with Gary Becker’s rational model of crime. The basic idea is surprisingly intuitive: people respond to incentives even when they’re deciding whether to do something illegal. Someone considering a crime weighs potential benefits against the probability of getting caught and the consequences if they do. Terrorism pushes that framework to an extreme. If someone is willing to die for a cause, the usual idea of increasing the punishment suddenly doesn’t work very well. Some of Alan Krueger’s past work used economics to explain who participates in terrorism. We didn’t get to talk about it much on the episode, but one of the important takeaways is that the familiar story connecting terrorism simply to poverty doesn’t hold up particularly well. From there, we turned to the economic impact of 9/11 itself and an interesting challenge of determining whether it had a small or big shock on the economy. The argument for “small shock” focuses on the loss relative to the overall size of the U.S. economy. Businesses relocated, damaged physical capital could eventually be rebuilt, and some of the decline in industries like travel was offset by growing demand elsewhere, particularly in security and counterterrorism. The economy was also already in a recession that had begun months earlier, making it especially difficult to separate a distinct 9/11 effect from everything else happening in 2001. Zooming out makes the “big effect” argument much stronger, especially with the benefit of twenty-five years of hindsight. Travel and conventions were hit especially hard, government spending on defense and security expanded, the Department of Homeland Security was created, and new security policies became part of everyday life. Fear itself also mattered economically. People pulled back from travel and other activities because they understandably perceived the risk of another attack as much higher. Some substituted driving for flying, even though driving carries greater accident risk. Immigration restrictions may also have reduced an important source of long-run economic growth. These are harder effects to capture with a single GDP number because they show up over many years. And then there have also been consequences that don’t fully show up in the economic data immediately after the attacks. Research documented sharp increases in stress and alcohol consumption, with psychological effects lasting well beyond the first few weeks. Those effects matter on their own, but they can also spill into the economy through health care use, productivity, and people’s ability to work. It’s a useful reminder of the limits of trying to put one number on an event this enormous. A short-run GDP estimate can tell us something, but it can’t tell us everything. It certainly can’t measure the grief and human cost experienced by the people directly affected. We ended the episode trying to determine whether the terrorists were successful. In many ways, our own behavior changed because of September 11, even if we don’t notice it often. Airport security, travel habits, government spending, privacy, and perceptions of risk all look different today. What is one change in everyday American life after 9/11 that you think has had the biggest lasting economic impact? Leave a comment and keep the conversation going. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Jadrian’s pick was hinted at early in the episode, but now he can share that a lot of this episode’s conversation was based on Alan Krueger’s book, What Makes a Terrorist?. The book grew out of a series of lectures Krueger gave at the London School of Economics. If today’s conversation made you want to go deeper into the economics behind it, this is the natural next stop. Matt went slightly more pop-culture-y with a Game of Thrones scene involving Doran Martell and the costs of choosing war over peace. The connection is the broken window fallacy that argues destroying useful things doesn’t make an economy wealthier just because rebuilding them later generates spending. The scene also connects nicely to the classic guns-versus-butter tradeoffm where resources devoted to war and military goods are resources that can’t simultaneously be used elsewhere. Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  5. Aug 27

    Price Controls Are Popular Again

    Price controls have traditionally been a policy that economists love to use as an example of unintended consequences, but new survey data suggests voters across the political spectrum increasingly support them. We dig into why both Republicans and Democrats are warming to the idea after years of frustration with higher prices. We also walk through what economic theory and history tell us about shortages, production incentives, and the longer-run effects of price ceilings. Finally, we wrestle with a harder question for economics teachers: if students understand the model but still support the policy, what exactly should we be trying to teach? In this episode, we talk about: * Why support for price controls now crosses party lines * How years of higher grocery, housing, and energy prices may be creating “inflation fatigue” * Why price ceilings can create shortages and change producers’ behavior over time * Why understanding the economics of price controls doesn’t necessarily mean opposing them * What economics teachers can do when students understand the model but reach a different policy conclusion If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 Jadrian typically joins with a beer, but this time he’s gone with a Cuba Libre Zero. He’s finally taking advantage of the bar cart he was inspired to assemble by friend-of-the-show Brian O’Rourke. Matt went with a Trash Talk IPA from Yards Brewing, served in some appropriately celebratory business-school glassware. Name That Stat 📊 In what may be a first for the show, we somehow both managed to get our stats this week! Matt shared the stat that drove our episode: the share of Republicans who now say they support government price controls. Jadrian went with a back-to-school theme and shared the percentage of college students who say they have changed their major or concentration because of job market worries. Show Notes Price controls are one of those topics that can feel almost automatic in an introductory economics class. Draw supply and demand, put a binding price ceiling below equilibrium, show the shortage, and move on to price floors. New polling data might make this topic a lot more interesting. A CBS News/YouGov poll found a majority support for price controls among Republicans, independents, and Democrats. That caught our attention because the partisan differences are still there, but opposition to price controls is no longer something you can neatly map onto the usual limited-government versus government-intervention divide. So what changed? Our best guess was fatigue. Consumers have spent years watching grocery bills, housing costs, gasoline, and plenty of everyday purchases get more expensive. Even when inflation slows, that doesn’t mean the price level goes back to where it was before. We talked about the disconnect that creates when economists can say inflation has come down, but consumers continue to see their grocery bill is still much higher than it used to be. After enough years of that, “the government should do something about prices” starts sounding pretty appealing. From there, we went back to the basic economics of a price ceiling. If the government caps a price below the market equilibrium, consumers want to buy more while producers have less incentive to supply the product. In the short run, that creates a shortage. But the longer-run response may be even more important. Farmers plant less next year. Landlords invest less in maintaining apartments. Developers decide not to build. These aren’t just predictions. The U.S. has a history of wage and price controls in the 1970s and rent control in modern days. That brought us to the part of the conversation we found most interesting: what if people understand all of that and still support the policy? Jadrian admits to seeing this in his class. Students can predict the shortage and explain how producers will respond, but then continue to support price controls on tuition or rent. It’s possible people aren’t thinking about the market-wide outcome, or they may be thinking probabilistically about themselves: “I can’t afford it now, so if the government lowers the price, maybe I’ll be one of the people who gets it.” A shortage is a cost, but it can feel like a chance at an affordable product that otherwise seems completely out of reach. That creates an important challenge for economics teachers. Hearing an economic argument once isn’t necessarily enough to overturn years of prior beliefs or personal experience. Maybe our goal shouldn’t simply be getting students to repeat that “price controls are bad.” The more interesting teaching opportunity is helping them recognize the tradeoffs, think about who actually gets the lower-priced good, and compare price controls with policies that attack the supply side of the problem. We’d love to hear how you think about this one, especially if you teach economics: if students understand why a price control creates shortages but still support the policy, what should we want them to take away from the lesson? Leave a comment and keep the conversation going. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Jadrian’s entry comes with a Not Safe for the Classroom warning. Chris Rock has a stand-up bit that offers his own version of gun control: instead of focusing on guns, make bullets wildly expensive. If ammunition costs enough, people are going to think a lot harder about using it. It may not be the example you want to lead with in your 8 a.m. principles class, but it’s certainly a memorable way to think about how prices change behavior. Matt brought two clips this week. The first comes from the final episode of Friends, when the group is saying goodbye to Monica and Chandler’s apartment. Chandler reflects on what a beautiful place it was and all the great memories they made there before adding the economist-friendly punchline: because of rent control, the place was a “frigging steal.” Matt’s second pick shifts from price controls specifically to the broader affordability problem. In the opening number from his favorite movie musical, everyone is dealing with the frustrations of trying to make it in Southern California. But, hey, at least there’s another day of sun. Of course, there’s an economics angle to that sunshine: lots of people want to live in Southern California, and all that demand shows up in housing prices. Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  6. Aug 14

    When AI Does the Homework, Who Does the Learning?

    Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming part of the college classroom, whether instructors are ready for it or not. We talk about how we’re using AI to save time as teachers, from writing better quiz questions to helping us prepare course materials, and how we’ve experimented with bringing it directly into class. But the bigger question is what happens when students use these tools to replace the struggle that’s supposed to lead to learning. We dig into where AI can make students stronger, where it might create shortcuts that hurt them, and how all of this is changing the way we think about teaching. In this episode, we talk about: * How LLMs can save instructors time on quiz questions, distractors, announcements, and other teaching prep * Bringing AI into class to work through game theory and other economics problems alongside students * The growing divide between students who use AI to build skills and those who use it to avoid building them * Why struggling with a problem is often part of learning, not an obstacle to it * How AI is forcing us to rethink assignments, assessments, and what we actually want students to get out of college If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 We recorded this one in the morning, so the drinks looked a little different than usual. Jadrian had coffee with a splash of Buffalo Trace Bourbon Cream, but only because he wasn’t heading straight to work after recording. Matt kept things technically non-alcoholic with Diet American Dew, served in a Michelob Ultra FIFA World Cup cup for a little extra flair. Name That Stat 📊 Since we’re talking AI in the classroom, Jadrian shared a stat that looked at how common artificial intelligence use was among college instructors. We know the students are using it to help in the classroom, but what about the professors? Matt went in an entirely different direction, with a focus on Broadway revenue. Despite concerns about ticket prices and struggling shows, Broadway is still generating a pretty remarkable amount of money. Show Notes AI is already in the classroom, but “using AI in the classroom” can mean a lot of different things. We’re both using LLMs as part of our jobs, especially for the repetitive work surrounding teaching. They’re great for cleaning up clicker questions, generating new versions of questions, suggesting plausible wrong answers for multiple-choice questions, and helping draft announcements. Anyone who has spent too much time trying to invent a fourth believable distractor knows how useful that can be. The important distinction is that much of this happens outside the classroom. But Matt has actually experimented with putting LLMs in front of students. One example came from his game theory course, when he introduced the classic beauty contest game. Everyone chooses a number, and the winner is the person closest to a fraction of the group’s average. After playing the game with students, he asks the LLM to play along, too. What makes the response interesting isn’t simply whether it lands on the “right” answer. It can explain the equilibrium, recognize that choosing the equilibrium probably won’t actually win against a room full of humans, and reason through how many steps ahead the other players are likely to think. Matt has also done a similar in-class experiment with a coordination game, showing how an LLM could distinguish between the factually correct answer and the answer most likely to be chosen by everyone else. The harder part of this conversation is what we’re seeing from students. There’s a potentially huge difference between using AI to help you learn and using AI to avoid learning. Strong students can use these tools to go further than they could before. They are asking more questions, exploring new ideas, improving projects, and getting feedback almost instantly. But we’re also seeing students turn to an LLM the second they encounter friction. Give them an ungraded practice problem, and some will immediately ask AI for the answer. Ask them to recall an elasticity formula and, instead of thinking through which version applies, the first instinct can be to ask a chatbot. The answer might be correct, but the thinking that was supposed to happen along the way disappears. That’s what makes the idea of productive struggle so important. We’ve always had technology that can do things students are supposed to learn to do. Calculators didn’t eliminate the value of knowing multiplication tables. The fact that a tool can produce an answer doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no value in learning how to reach that answer yourself. With LLMs, though, that substitution can happen across a much wider range of tasks. Jadrian has already adjusted some in his small class by only allowing handwritten notes and assigning in-person quizzes. But if students can hand a reading to an LLM and ask for a summary, then we have to think much more carefully about what the reading assignment was supposed to accomplish in the first place. The part we’re still wrestling with is what this means five or ten years from now. We may end up with students who become dramatically more capable because AI lets them build on an already strong foundation, while others become increasingly dependent on a tool because they never built that foundation at all. That makes this more than a conversation about cheating or whether ChatGPT should be allowed on an assignment. It’s really a question about what learning looks like when getting an answer has become incredibly cheap. So we’re curious how this is playing out for you. Where have you found AI genuinely helps someone learn, and where have you seen it become a substitute for learning? Leave a comment and tell us what you’re seeing in your own classroom, workplace, or experience with these tools. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Matt went back to Fiddler on the Roof and the song “Dear Sweet Sewing Machine,” which celebrates a piece of technology that seems pretty ordinary today. But for a tailor in early-20th-century Russia, a sewing machine represented a major productivity boost: suddenly, you could produce substantially more in the same amount of time. Jadrian has been rewatching Superstore and highlighted an episode where the fictional retailer rolls out an app that lets customers find products, scan their items, and pay without ever interacting with an employee. Naturally, the workers start wondering: if customers can do all of that themselves, why are we here? Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  7. Jul 30

    The Economy by Decade: The 2000s and The Great Recession

    The 2000s were so important, we needed a Part 2 to tackle the Great Recession. We unpack how easy credit, soaring housing prices, risky lending, and the financial system combined to create the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Along the way, we debate whether the government bailouts were the right call and talk about the long-term effects that still shape housing, lending, higher education, and personal finance today. In this episode, we talk about: * What caused the Great Recession and why there wasn’t one single culprit * The housing bubble, subprime mortgages, and why banks kept lending * Whether TARP and the bank bailouts were unpopular necessities or policy mistakes * How the recession permanently changed lending, mortgages, and borrowing * Why the effects of 2008 still show up today through demographics, higher education, and attitudes toward debt Check out the first part of this conversation when we unpacked the rest of the 2000s: This Week’s Drinks 🍻 We may be recording on the same day, but that doesn’t mean the drinks need to stay the same. Brian stuck with his cocktail tour of the decade by switching from a mojito to a Cosmopolitan. In contrast, Jadrian switched from his Pickle PBR to something a little more local: Richmond Lager from Hardywood Brewery. Matt stuck with his Summer Shred Hazy IPA from Ever Grain Brewing. Name That Stat 📊 We stuck with the 2000s themes for our stats this week with data on the amount of value that was destroyed when Enron collapsed, the number of votes that decided the 2000 presidential election in Florida, and the number of banks that failed during 2008. The stats for this week’s episode help frame just how unusual the decade really was. Show Notes The aughts were such an important decade that we had to tackle it in two parts. We previously looked at the economy right before it arrived at the edge of the cliff. This episode is about what happened after it went over. The Great Recession reshaped the economy for a long time: unemployment stayed elevated for years, the financial system nearly collapsed, and the recovery became a defining economic experience for an entire generation. If you haven’t listened to Part 1 yet, that’s the perfect place to start before jumping into this episode. We started our conversation by trying to figure out what actually caused the crisis. There’s no single bad decision. Instead, there were several forces that reinforced one another: historically low interest rates, rapidly rising home prices, increasingly risky mortgages, political pressure to expand homeownership, banks making loans they should have questioned more carefully, and the widespread belief that housing prices simply wouldn’t fall. With all of that we eventually saw falling home values, mortgage defaults, and failing financial institutions. But with all that happening, we can’t ignore the government’s response. One question we kept coming back to was whether programs like TARP were bad policy or simply the least bad option available. On one hand, bailing out banks that made poor decisions created a clear moral hazard problem and left many people wondering why financial institutions received help while ordinary homeowners struggled. On the other hand, the government could have allowed the financial system to collapse. With the benefit of hindsight, TARP may have been one of the most effective emergency economic policies despite being so unpopular at the time. We finished by thinking less about what happened in 2008 and more about the repercussions we are seeing today. Buying a home today involves far more documentation and scrutiny than it once did, reflecting the lessons lenders learned after the crash. The recession also caused a sharp decline in birth rates, creating today’s demographic cliff that many colleges are beginning to experience. Today’s younger generations also seem much more cautious about taking on debt, whether that’s mortgages, credit cards, or student loans. Some of those changes are clearly the result of new regulations, while others may simply reflect a generation shaped by watching what happened during the financial crisis. The Great Recession may have ended years ago, but many of the decisions made during that period still shape the economy we live in today. Looking back, do you think the government made the right choices, or would you have handled the crisis differently? We’d love to hear your perspective in the comments. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Jadrian recommended The Year That Broke America, a book that argues many of today’s political, economic, and cultural challenges can be traced back to the pivotal events of 2000. After spending two episodes unpacking the decade, it’s a fitting reminder that the forces shaping today’s economy had been building for years before the Great Recession. Jadrian also chipped in one of the more unexpected pop culture picks: footage from the 2008 Rock Paper Scissors National Championship in Las Vegas. Beyond the novelty, it’s a fun illustration of game theory in action. Even in a seemingly random game, players try to anticipate one another’s strategies, making it a surprisingly useful way to think about incentives, expectations, and decision-making under pressure. Brian highlighted a memorable scene from Despicable Me in which Gru visits the Bank of Evil to ask for a loan. Eagle-eyed viewers will notice the sign underneath the bank’s name: “Formerly Lehman Brothers.” It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it joke, but one that perfectly captures how synonymous Lehman Brothers became with the financial crisis. Brian also gave a shout-out to his book, Potternomics: Why Wizards Still Live in the Dark Ages. Since the first Harry Potter film premiered in 2001, it also serves as a nostalgic nod to one of the defining cultural phenomena of the decade we just spent exploring. Matt’s first recommendation comes from The Big Short, specifically the scene that introduces mortgage bonds and explains how home loans were bundled together and sold throughout the financial system. It’s one of the clearest and most entertaining explanations of the financial plumbing behind the housing crisis and pairs perfectly with this week’s discussion. Matt wrapped things up with a clip from The Office where Warren Buffett unexpectedly appears as a job applicant. Even one of the world’s most successful investors wasn’t immune from becoming part of the cultural conversation surrounding the Great Recession. Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

  8. Jul 16

    The Economy by Decade: The 2000s (Part 1)

    The 2000s began with a strong economy, low unemployment, growing globalization, and plenty of optimism left over from the 1990s. Then came the dot-com crash, 9/11, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, major manufacturing job losses, and a sharp increase in federal debt. We look at how those events reshaped markets, jobs, government spending, and household finances. We decided to stop just before the Great Recession, which is big enough to get an episode of its own. In this episode, we talk about: * What the 2000s inherited from the booming economy of the late 1990s * The economic fallout from 9/11 and the wars that followed * China’s WTO entry, globalization, and the decline of manufacturing employment * How interest rates, household debt, and easy borrowing set the stage for what came next If you liked this conversation, you might also enjoy This Week’s Drinks 🍻 Jadrian finally got the chance to bring out his Pabst Blue Ribbon mixed with Grillo’s pickle juice, timed nicely with the approach of Picklesburgh. Matt went with a Summer Shred Hazy IPA from Ever Grain Brewing Company, which has no connection to the 2000s but was apparently overdue for an appearance. Brian leaned into the decade with a mojito, inspired by the super-sweet, fruit-heavy cocktails that were everywhere in the 2000s. Name That Stat 📊 This week's numbers covered several different corners of the 2000s economy. We looked at the explosive growth of the World Series of Poker's Main Event, the dramatic collapse of the NASDAQ after the dot-com bubble burst, and the millions of manufacturing jobs lost during the decade. Along the way, we also explored how unemployment, federal debt, and financial markets changed over one of the most turbulent economic periods in recent history. Show Notes We have a packed episode, but thankfully we have Brian O’Roark back to help us make sense of the 2000s. It was a decade packed with an incredible amount of economic history, but we start by asking what the decade inherited from the 1990s. The answer was a lot of economic optimism, despite initial fears of bank failures, grounded airplanes, and collapsing computer systems thanks to the Y2K scare. Unemployment was at levels that once seemed unusually low, the federal government had recently run budget surpluses, globalization was accelerating, and the stock market had spent years climbing. Europe was moving toward physical euro notes, China was approaching entry into the World Trade Organization, and economists had plenty of reasons to believe freer trade and deeper international connections would create broad gains. That optimism did not last long. The dot-com bubble burst, and the ensuing Nasdaq crash forced some people to remain in the workforce much longer than expected. The broader stock market offered very little progress for anyone who invested in the beginning and was hoping to cash out at the end. This is part of the reason the decade is sometimes described as a lost decade for investors and households. Even though 9/11 was not primarily an economic event, its economic consequences spread quickly and lasted for years. Airlines stopped flying, travel and commerce were disrupted, and businesses faced an entirely new security environment. The longer-term effects included the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the expansion of the security state, and a major increase in military and federal spending. That helped push the national debt much higher during the decade and marked a dramatic break from the budget surpluses inherited from the late 1990s. The decade also provided an opportunity to look at globalization and the labor market. China’s entry into the WTO accelerated a shift that was already underway in communities built around manufacturing. American manufacturing continues to produce an enormous amount of stuff, but it increasingly does so with fewer workers. Those losses were concentrated in particular towns and regions and led to wider consequences, including effects on health, crime, educational opportunities, political attitudes, and the opioid crisis. We closed with a look at the numbers that defined the decade: unemployment rising after two separate recessions, household debt payments taking up a larger share of disposable income, median household income struggling to make sustained progress, and federal interest rates moving sharply up and down. The Federal Reserve cut rates aggressively after the early recession, kept borrowing unusually cheap, and later raised rates again before dropping them toward zero during the crisis. We had to stop before covering the Great Recession because it was too important (and too complicated) to squeeze into the end of this conversation. When you think back on the 2000s, which economic change feels most important to you: the dot-com crash, globalization, 9/11, the changing job market, or something else entirely? Leave a comment and tell us what stands out from your own experience of the decade. Pop Culture Corner 🍿 Matt raised a glass to longtime Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and recommended his book The Age of Turbulence. Greenspan’s decisions, and the wider debate over whether interest rates stayed too low for too long, fit directly into the decade’s story. The book offers a natural companion to the episode’s discussion of monetary policy, recessions, and the buildup to the housing crisis. Brian revisited the classic Simpsons episode in which Homer’s car ends up immobilized between the Twin Towers. While the rest of the family enjoys New York, Homer is forced to wait all day for a parking official who may arrive at any time. It works as a lesson in opportunity cost and government inefficiency, but it also preserves an image of pre-9/11 New York that now carries much more emotional weight. Jadrian chose HGTV’s House Hunters, which debuted in 1999 and became a perfect symbol of the housing culture that grew during the 2000s. Cheap mortgages, ambitious renovations, house flipping, and buyers casually discussing budgets that look almost unbelievable today all captured the mood of the pre-recession housing boom. Old clips now feel like little time capsules from an era when rising home values seemed almost automatic. Have a question or topic idea? Reply to this email or drop it in the comments! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.econhappyhour.com

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

Economics Happy Hour is a podcast where two economics educators talk through current events, teaching, and research over a drink. Conversations are unscripted and focused on how economists actually think about the world and the classroom. www.econhappyhour.com

You Might Also Like