Economics: Weekly Summary (November 24-30, 2025)

I’d say this week’s pile of economics posts reads like a messy family dinner. Some people brought a solid roast. Others brought a casserole that tastes suspiciously like last year’s argument. There’s a strong scent of AI gravy in the air. There’s also a side dish of housing pain, and a plateful of monetary policy leftovers that nobody quite knows how to reheat.

AI: mania, skepticism, and the tangle of value

AI dominated conversations. Not surprising. It’s like overhearing the neighbor brag about a new pickup truck and then hearing someone else warn it’ll eat the garage. There are a few flavors here.

On one side, you have pieces that smell of hype and warning at once. Derek Thompson(/a/derek_thompson) and Timothy Lee’s coauthored review showed up as a primer on how to sound like an expert in any AI bubble debate. It’s practical in that way — a cheat sheet of stats and talking points you can recycle. I would describe them as a useful pocketknife for the dinner table. It helps you cut through the usual chestnuts: spending figures, productivity claims, and the cyclicality of tech investment. But it doesn’t pretend to settle anything.

Then there’s the more alarmed crowd. Nick Heer(/a/nickheer@pxlnv.com) calls this A.I. mania bigger than the dot‑com bubble. He’s not exactly subtle. To me, it feels like a city that built a thousand houses without checking the roads. Plenty of new structures. Less attention to the people who live in them. The human cost — layoffs, uncertain job futures — shows up again and again. And Philipp Dubach(/a/philippdubach) pushes back on wholesale AGI assumptions. His piece argues that LLMs still largely pattern‑match. He’s skeptical AGI is just a scaling problem. I’d say his tone is the cautious engineer in the room saying: don’t sell the farm yet.

A few posts thread the middle. Michael Spencer(/a/michaelspencer@ai-supremacy.com) and the more skeptical Will Lockett(/a/willlockett@planetearthandbeyond.co) worry about infrastructure costs, hallucinations, and the limits of scaling. Spencer even ties AI worries into affordability and public debt — a neat intersection of tech and macro. There’s a recurrent metaphor in these posts: AI is like a flashy new appliance that promises to wash everything. But it needs plumbing, electricity, ducts, and someone who can fix it when it spills. The enthusiasm is real. The messy bits are real too.

And then there’s the turf war over who's making the money. Nick Heer and the Naked Capitalism(/a/naked_capitalism) pieces both poke at the narratives around big players — Nvidia in particular. Nvidia’s story has been the rallying cry for bulls. But critics wonder whether government ties and rivals could cut the legs out from under the narrative. It’s a classic ‘hero company’ story with some valid skeptical footnotes.

If you want a quick read that will make you nod and worry, start with Derek Thompson’s guide and follow it with Dubach’s skepticism. It’s like pairing an appetizer with a palate cleanser.

Affordability, housing, and the slow leak of homeownership

Housing was another clear thread. It’s not flashy. It’s the slow, steady thing that changes lives.

Kevin Erdmann(/a/kevin_erdmann@kevinerdmann.substack.com) tore into a paper called "Giving Up" and argued the study misses a huge chunk of the story: mortgage access. He makes a sharp claim that the post‑2008 mortgage crunch permanently excluded roughly 15 million households from potential homeownership. That’s a number that lands like a baseball to the chest. Erdmann’s take shifts the conversation from prices alone to the gatekeeping role of credit.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock(/a/mikemishshedlock@mishtalk.com) wrote twice this week on affordability and family finances, once on whether politicians can fix the affordability crisis and again on poll framing that mixes personal comfort with economic pessimism. Both pieces feel related. The first is blunt: political promises don’t map neatly onto microeconomic realities. The second makes a small, fond complaint about surveys that ask the wrong question and expect clean answers. Together they read like two neighbors arguing about whether the town council can fix potholes. The potholes are real. The council’s toolbox is limited.

There’s a little human note too. A short piece titled "Smiling." (blogjpnearlcom) mixes grief and grocery inflation — eggs and all. It’s a small reminder that policy and macro numbers are not abstract. They hit Thanksgiving tables, and that matters. Speaking of Thanksgiving, Political Calculations(/a/political_calculations) reports the cost of the Thanksgiving dinner fell in 2025, mostly because turkey prices dropped. That’s a neat, crisp datapoint. You can picture the table, the turkey on a platter, and the conversation at the end about whether prices are actually coming down.

Taken together, the housing pieces are a push against narratives that reduce the problem to "housing supply" or to simple blame on developers or politicians. The gatekeepers, credit rules, and long legal tail of 2008 still loom large. To me, it feels like the market turned the keys over to a different set of mechanics and nobody handed the owners an updated manual.

Inflation, the Fed, and market prices — who’s really in charge?

Monetary policy popped up in a few corners. The theme here is blunt: the Fed sets a target, but markets often decide the final bill.

Quoth the Raven(/a/quoththeraven@quoththeraven.substack.com) had two neat pieces. One argued the Fed doesn’t determine the price of credit; markets do. Repo rates outside the Fed’s corridor were used as the example. The other flagged Kevin Hassett as a possible Fed Chair, and how markets are salivating at the idea of rapid rate cuts. Both posts suggest markets are more flexible, and frankly more stubborn, than Fed statements. I would describe these posts as a reality check on the idea that central banks are omnipotent.

Elsewhere, the "Quelle Surprise!" post on firm‑level drivers of inflation (Naked Capitalism(/a/naked_capitalism)) argues something similar from a different angle: big firms with market power set prices in ways that can mute or amplify monetary policy. That’s a reminder that inflation isn’t only about money supply or wage growth. Sometimes it’s a handful of companies deciding how bold they’ll be on markups. It’s a bit like a small town where three grocery stores jointly decide whether to run a sale. If they all raise prices together, the town feels poorer.

And then there are real costs hitting firms. Mike “Mish” Shedlock(/a/mikemishshedlock@mishtalk.com) notes Deere’s tariff hit — a projected $1.2 billion pre‑tax tariff tax in fiscal 2026. Tariffs show up as real dents in profit and investment plans. Tariffs, debt, and a Fed thinking about cuts are entering the same neighborhood. To me, it feels like someone trying to balance a checkbook while the electricity bill jumps and the neighbor asks to borrow sugar. It’s manageable. But messy.

Trade, tariffs, and the strange politics of revenue

Trade and tariffs sparked sharper commentary. The tone is part bemused, part exasperated.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock(/a/mikemishshedlock@mishtalk.com) again, this time blasting the idea that tariffs could replace income tax. He walks through the arithmetic — a 73% import tariff to replace $2.4 trillion in income tax revenue — and calls it unrealistic. Harsh words, simple math. It’s a reminder that some political proposals sound catchy until you ask the numbers to stand up.

There’s geopolitical theater too. Dean Blundell(/a/dean_blundell@deanblundell.substack.com) writes about Canada and the EU exploring options if U.S. policy toward Ukraine flips. It’s a reminder that trade and security aren’t two separate conversations. They tango. The undercurrent is: economic policy gets tangled with geopolitics, and the results can be chaotic.

Paul Kedrosky(/a/paul_kedrosky) had a compact roundup noting China’s jaw‑dropping trade surplus and the tightening margins in bitcoin mining. Small notes like that matter because they’re the daily weather of global trade — and they change investment decisions.

Labor, inequality, and the myth of rugged entrepreneurs

Several writers pushed back on stories that glamorize entrepreneurs or ignore structural privilege.

Ryan Stohl(/a/ryan_stohl@stohl.substack.com) published a disarming study summary: entrepreneurs from wealthy backgrounds have an outsized chance of surviving startup stress. The phrase "using other people’s money" isn’t just a crack; it’s a structural advantage. The narrative of the heroic founder pulling themselves up by their bootstraps gets dented here. To me, it feels like the difference between a kid going to college with scholarship help and a kid going because mom can pay the tuition. The outcomes are predictably different.

Ben Werdmuller(/a/ben_werdmuller@werd.io) took aim at the poverty line math. He argues it’s been miscalculated for decades and proposes a dramatically higher figure if calculated the way it was in the 1960s. That’s provocative. It’s the kind of claim that makes you squint at official stats and at how societies normalize hardship.

Josh Marshall (Gordon(/a/gordon@notes.kateva.org)) and Will Lockett(/a/will_lockett@planetearthandbeyond.co) also consider AI through the lens of fear and labor substitution. Marshall says fear is rational and often turns into hostility. Lockett says AI primarily affects lower‑skilled roles and that skill shortages will shape the rollout. Both pieces make a similar point: we’re not just debating technology. We’re arguing about who keeps the jobs and who retools for the future.

Historical and institutional threads — why the past keeps showing up

A surprising set of posts came from historians and archivists. They remind readers that many current debates are echoes of old fights.

Irwin Collier(/a/irwin_collier) posted multiple historical snapshots: a 1973 Hart memo critiquing Columbia’s economics department for ignoring institutional economics, a 1909‑10 Harvard exam overview on industrial relations, and a 1926 essay reflecting on teaching economic statistics. These are quiet, patient pieces. They feel like someone pulling family albums from a closet and saying: remember this? The point is clear. Economics has long wrestled with the balance between theory and the messy world. These old documents aren’t quaint. They’re a mirror.

Nathan Knopp(/a/nathan_knopp@systemfailure.org) went deeper, arguing that economic systems arise with new belief systems — Roman wealth concentration, medieval feudalism, the rise of science. His essay reads like a broad meditation on how ideas and institutions flip when stress builds. It’s a big arching take. It sometimes drifts into philosophical corners, but the drift connects: long waves matter.

Commoncog(/a/commoncog) used weightlifting as an analogy for learning business. Experience matters, but so does reading history. He points out that the end of ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) reworked venture capital and hiring strategies. That’s a neat, practical marriage of the historical to the now.

Corporate behavior, competition, and pricing power

Naked Capitalism(/a/naked_capitalism) ran two pieces that belong together. One focuses on Nvidia and the narratives surrounding it. The other argues concentrated firms have driven inflation more than aggregate shocks. Read them back to back and the picture sharpens: when a few big firms act in similar ways, prices and narratives both rise.

This is the sort of practical, granular thinking that changes how you see CPI numbers. Instead of treating inflation as a cloud, these authors try to look at individual raindrops.

Health, biotech, and markets that hope and fall

A small but pointed set of posts focused on biotech. Ashwin Sharma, MD(/a/ashwinsharma_md@glp1digest.com) writes about GLP‑1 drugs, recent trial failures, and the cliff edges that follow in stocks and valuations. The story is familiar: big hopes, a trial that undercuts them, and a scramble to reassess unit economics. It’s a reminder that medical science is risky and that markets sometimes confuse early promise with durable business models.

A few stray, but telling, notes

• Tariff reports and food prices: The Thanksgiving prices note (Political Calculations(/a/political_calculations)) and the Deere tariff hit (Mike “Mish” Shedlock(/a/mikemishshedlock@mishtalk.com)) together make a quiet macro point: tariffs and commodity moves show up at both the farm and the table.
• Crypto and identity politics: Nick Cohen(/a/nickcohen@nickcohen.substack.com) and Paul Kedrosky(/a/paulkedrosky) touch on bitcoin, crypto mania, and how politics colors finance. Crypto is still a mirror reflecting distrust of institutions — and also a mirror reflecting some ugly politics.
• Geopolitics and economic fallout: Dean Blundell(/a/dean_blundell@deanblundell.substack.com) on Europe’s plan B for Ukraine is a reminder that policy choices in one place can ripple into trade and markets elsewhere.

Where the debates agree (and where they fight)

There’s surprisingly consistent agreement on a few small points. Most writers accept that AI is not an overnight panacea. Most accept that housing problems are multi‑dimensional and that credit access matters. Many agree that big firms can move prices in ways that central banks don’t fully control.

Where they fight is in tone and prescription. Some want rapid policy intervention. Others say markets will sort it, or that policy thinking is stuck in the past. Some are pessimistic about AI’s social effects; some see it as a productivity engine. Some focus on the micro (firm‑level pricing, mortgage access) while others focus on macro (Fed strategy, tariffs, geopolitical shocks). The fights are mostly about emphasis and the plausible speed of change.

I would describe these debates as less a single argument and more a neighborhood of overlapping conversations. They bump into one another, sometimes politely, sometimes loudly. If you like neat, tidy answers, you’ll sigh. If you like the mess that real problems make, you’ll find this interesting.

A few small takeaways you can carry in your pocket

• Watch credit access, not just prices. Kevin Erdmann’s point about mortgage exclusion matters. It changes how we think about homeownership statistics.
• Take AI claims with a grain of salt. Derek Thompson’s primer pairs nicely with Philipp Dubach’s skepticism. One teaches talking points. The other asks you to test the engine.
• Remember firm power. Inflation isn’t always a policy problem. Sometimes it’s a few big companies nudging prices.
• Don’t believe simple political fixes. Tariffs replacing income tax? The arithmetic fails. Somewhere between theater and policy there’s real cost.
• History matters. Academics like Irwin Collier’s posts remind us that the debates over methods and institutions aren’t new.

I could list more specific posts and quotes, and honestly I encourage you to follow the links and read the originals. These summaries scratch the itch, but the posts themselves have the texture — the numbers, the charts, the little asides that make the arguments richer. If you like the sound of one thread, dive into it. Derek Thompson’s piece is a tidy starting point on AI. Kevin Erdmann’s housing critique will make you look twice at homeownership stats. Quoth the Raven’s pieces are good for a quick, blunt reality check on monetary myths.

If you’re pressed for time, imagine this week’s conversation as a radio talkshow. The host is AI. The callers are housing, inflation, tariffs, and history. Some callers repeat old grievances. A few bring new evidence. Everyone wants to be heard.

Reading these posts felt a bit like walking a busy street market. Lots of competing pitches. Some sellers shout louder than others. Some stands have real value and some are mainly show. You can wander, nibble a bit, and maybe buy one useful thing. Or you can stand there and listen until a clearer pattern emerges.

There’s no shortage of patterns. The big ones are: tech optimism wrapped in uncertainty; policy ideas that sometimes ignore arithmetic; labor and credit stories that quietly determine outcomes; and a return of institutional and historical thinking that asks not just what we do, but how we learned to act this way.

If you want the longer, linked reads, follow each author’s post. They’re the ones doing the heavy lifting. They’re worth a deeper look. Read them in the order that annoys you the most — that’s often the best way to learn. Happy digging.