Trump’s $2,000 Tariff Dividend Doesn’t Add Up — Here’s Why

Ed Elson sits down with Justin Wolfers, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan, to unpack President Trump’s proposed $2,000 tariff dividend. Then, Alex Heath, author of The Verge’s Sources newsletter and co-host of the Decoder podcast, joins the show to break down the growing rivalry between Anthropic and OpenAI, and their sharply different business strategies. Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram and X Follow Scott on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Michelob Ultra. Good times mean competitions between you and your friends. Like seeing who can throw some pigskin the farthest or rush the field the fastest. Winner gets an ultra. Because it's not just a superior light beer, it's also giving fans superior access to their favorite sporting events. Superior is worth playing for. Visit michelobultra.com/superioraccess to enter. Enjoy responsibly. Copyright 2026 Anheuser Busch InBev Michelob Ultra Beer, St. Louis, Missouri.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Running a small business means I wear lots of hats. When I put on my hiring hat, I can count on LinkedIn Hiring Pro to make it easy. LinkedIn Hiring Pro helps manage my hiring workflow, puts my job post in front of a unique network of professionals and matches me with the best candidates for my business. I can also share my job with my network. No other job site lets me do that. No wonder most small businesses say they'd use LinkedIn Hiring Pro again. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 1:00Speaker 02

  Energía baja. Falta de concentración? Nevra mental? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero Powders han sido diseñados científicamente para ayudarte a mejorar el balance de hidratación en el cuerpo. Hechos con la mezcla número uno de electrolitos, sin colores ni sabores artificiales. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Signos de dehidratación leve y moderada. Consulta a tu médico si lo siento más persistente.

• 1:29Ed Elson?

  Today's number? Twenty-three. That's how many kilograms of pasta the average Italian eats every year, more than any other nationality. We try to come up with a good joke about Italians, but we can only do so much.

• 1:47Speaker 04

  Money markets, Matt. If money is evil, then that building is hell.

• 1:57Ed Elson?

  Welcome to Frosty Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is November 12th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The Dow closed at a record high on continued optimism for an end to the shutdown. The S and P also rose, however, the Nasdaq declined as Nvidia dragged down the index. Nvidia shares fell 3% after SoftBank sold its entire stake in the company to fund their other AI efforts. Meanwhile, the dollar slid after new ADP data indicated a slowing labor market. And finally, AI infrastructure company CoreWeave dropped 16% after issuing weaker than expected guidance for the year. Okay, what else is happening?

• 2:42Ed Elson?

  A new twist in the tariff story emerged this week, and that is the tariff dividend. Over the weekend, President Trump proposed a $2,000 tariff dividend for all Americans except for high income earners. He says the dividend will be funded by the revenues that the tariffs bring in. He also wrote on Truth Social, quote, "People who are against tariffs are fools. We are now the richest, most respected country in the world." However, the White House has not released any plans on what this dividend will actually look like. So the tariff dividend, essentially the stimulus check of 2025, perhaps it'll happen, perhaps it won't happen. It isn't clear how serious this proposal actually

• 3:25Ed Elson?

  is, but if it does happen, well, it will have pretty significant impacts on our economy and also our nation. So to help us make sense of this proposal, we are speaking with Justin Wolfers, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Professor Wolfers, thank you very much for joining us again on Prof. Markets.

• 3:44Justin Wolfers?

  Wait, if you call me Professor Wolfers, do I have to call you Mr. Ed?

• 3:49Ed Elson?

  You do. That's the rule.

• 3:50Justin Wolfers?

  Okay, a horse is a horse, of course. No, I can't talk to a horse, of course. That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous.

• 3:57Ed Elson?

  Mr. Ed.

• 3:58Justin Wolfers?

  Yep.

• 4:01Ed Elson?

  Well, it's good to see you again. We want to get your reactions to this $2,000 tariff dividend. What do you make of this? What are your thoughts? Does this make sense?

• 4:14Justin Wolfers?

  Is this a swearing show or a no swearing show?

• 4:16Ed Elson?

  This is a swearing show.

• 4:19Justin Wolfers?

  Is swearing good for the soul or bad for the soul?

• 4:23Justin Wolfers?

  So, I'm gonna give you a hot take. I must say, dear, I've heard. In my head, there was an expletive in between. Um, okay. Here's how this looks like on average. Take money from Americans through tariffs, pull it in through the IRS, send it over to the check printing department and send it out to Americans. In the best possible scenario, we come out even. The best thing we can do is not harm people. Okay. In reality, is it a good idea for the government to take money with one hand and then just send it straight back out? Remember, on average, because there's going to be differences across people. Uh, no. I am so old, Ed, so very old.

• 5:08Justin Wolfers?

  I remember when Republicans didn't like taxes.

• 5:12Justin Wolfers?

  Their argument was, if you tax my income, then I'll work less hard. Every extra hour means less take home pay, less stuff. The same thing, by the way, applies to a consumption tax. If I work a certain number of hours, get the same amount of money, but now I can't afford as much stuff, that's less of an incentive to work.

• 5:34Justin Wolfers?

  A tariff is a form of a consumption tax. And so exactly the same logic that Republicans use to say we shouldn't tax income also applies to taxing consumption and also applies to tariffs. And so then the idea of pulling money in, bearing all those economic costs that Republicans think we shouldn't bear unless absolutely necessary, and then the only necessary thing that happens is we send the money straight back out and on average people come out exactly the same, is absurd on its face.

• 6:04Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 6:05Justin Wolfers?

  So here's the thing. If you want to reduce how much tariffs are hurting Americans, I have this whole much simpler plan.

• 6:16Justin Wolfers?

  Don't levy the tariffs. And then you haven't got this problem. You've taken money from people and you have to give it back. Just don't take it. Leave them with it.

• 6:26Ed Elson?

  So my response to that, of course, I agree.

• 6:31Ed Elson?

  Perhaps the argument, and perhaps the argument that people are kind of implicitly making in their heads is, oh, no, these tariffs, we got the money from foreigners, we got the money from China and India and Brazil. So we're transferring money from these foreign nations and putting it in the pockets of Americans. I think you and I understand that's not what's happening because, as you say, tariffs are a tax on consumption, it's a tax on Americans, it's a tax on the importers as well. But it sounds as if that's maybe the implicit argument that by saying, oh, we're going to give the money back to you, it implies that we got it from someone else.

• 7:13Justin Wolfers?

  Well, then why do we have to give it back to us? So you do know we have a national debt of quite some substantial magnitude, one that the president promised would be over within eight years.

• 7:24Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 7:25Justin Wolfers?

  So, yes, even if that were true, which it's not, right? It's not. Can we be clear? So let's end a crazy land where it's true that somehow China is sending us checks. Why is it that the next step is that we have to send those checks straight on to American households? I don't think there's any logic to that. So I have spent some amount of my day doing TV interviews on this. And people keep asking, you're a serious economist, let me ask you a serious set of questions. You just did it, Ed, because you're a wonderful guy, devastatingly handsome, and you want to get to the truth. But if you want to get to the truth, don't ask me what the economic logic of this is, because there isn't any.

• 8:04Ed Elson?

  Yes.

• 8:04Justin Wolfers?

  So here's where the emperor's wearing no clothes, apart from everywhere. But the thing I want to focus on is there's a standard way you do economic policy. You come up with an idea in a room, maybe in the White House, and then you ask your nerds to go off and crunch some numbers. And then you think about the idea and you bring together people from the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers and the Treasury chimes in. And there's a policy process and you think about who wins and who loses and you talk to the interest groups and the stakeholders and so on. And then you've refined this policy so it's so beautiful, it achieves exactly your goals, you're so excited to unveil it to the American people that you don't just tweet about it at midnight. You then release a thirty page background paper that explains the case and makes the

• 8:48Justin Wolfers?

  argument and shows the modeling and you go out there and you try and win the war of ideas. You're excited because you've got something you really believe in and you can't wait to show your work. That's how it's worked every single day of my lifetime, except now. So the real thing is, should you ask an economist to take seriously a policy that the White House hasn't taken seriously? So here's the challenge to you, to me, to anyone, I'm a pretty good economist, you're a pretty fantastic journalist, you should be able to call the White House and say, can I see your work?

• 9:18Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 9:19Justin Wolfers?

  My son right now is thirteen years old, he's upstairs right now, he's preparing for a middle school math exam, he has to show his work. My son, the stakes of whether he gets question five on his middle school math test correct are far lower than the macroeconomics of a two thousand dollar rebate per person. My son is showing more of his work than the president. My son is more convinced that he has a useful answer to a question that's worth answering than the president. And so I think we should all give up the pretense, if they're not going to show their work, it's because they haven't done it and we should stop pretending that it's anything remotely serious, it's populist nonsense. This is no way to govern a country, sorry, Ed.

• 10:02Justin Wolfers?

  You're fantastic and what happened was I just got the head of steam going because it drives me nuts. How are you feeling? Tell me about your feelings, Ed.

• 10:12Ed Elson?

  Well, I wanted to get to, why did he do this? And I think you kind of hinted at it there when you said populist nonsense. It sounds like this is, I mean, we look at the approval ratings of Trump and specifically his tariff policy, which are low and going even lower. People are putting, connecting the dots and realizing, okay, inflation's rising, my grocery bills are going up and more people are realizing, okay, this is probably because we put a twenty percent tax on all the stuff that we bring in. So I wonder if maybe this is just his kind of lazy way of winning back political approval, getting people to like him, his free money.

• 10:57Justin Wolfers?

  Is that what this is all about? One imagines. So I think really the framing is going to be this is a tariff dividend. My policy is doing so much that I can afford to send some of it back to you. If that's the political signal, I want our audience to be very clear on what's happening here. So this is just arithmetic, right? At the moment, we're pulling in between 20 and 25 billion per month in tariff revenue. So this, this is, he's planning on sending out 600 billion in checks. So roughly speaking, we might pull in 250 or 300 billion in tariffs. Now comes the easy question, what's bigger? 600 billion, I'm going to use hands to make this easy, I'm sorry for those who are on audio, or 300 billion?

• 11:42Justin Wolfers?

  I'm gonna go with 600 billion on this one. So the president has said, I'm going to do this, look, and there might be other ways in which it's complicated. He might decide to cut out the kids, so we're moving from 600 to 450 billion. He might cut out more rich people, who the hell knows? But, you know, the point is, he's getting 250 to 300 billion in tariff revenue, and he wants to declare a dividend. The dividend he's declared is more than all of it. And he said, not only is he going to declare a dividend, he's going to use the rest to pay down the national debt. Yeah. There's no rest, it's negative, the national debt's going up. So he is not even showing us the respect of using numbers that are in the ballpark of truthful. Yeah. Hey, can I surprise you?

• 12:28Justin Wolfers?

  Please. There's something I love about this policy. What's that? So one thing I don't like about tariffs is tariffs are aggressive, because they're a tax on spending, and poor people spend a larger share of their income than do rich people. So what's terrible is, he's saying, well, let's pull in all this money that's in a regressive way. But guess what? He's talking about giving it out as a flat $2,000 per, which is incredibly positive in terms of redistributing towards working and middle-class Americans. This is extremely progressive. So even though it's a regressive tax, if he sends it as a flat amount...

• 13:00Justin Wolfers?

  Working class Americans will come out on top. I love that for him. And guess what? That's how I know it's not going to happen.

• 13:08Ed Elson?

  Yes.

• 13:10Justin Wolfers?

  I am willing to bet you, Ed, whatever, how, I don't even know what my annual salary is, but whatever my salary is between November 11th and the end of the year, I will bet that against your salary between November 11th and the end of the year, that this will not happen.

• 13:25Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Which brings us probably to Scott Bassin's comments where he was asked about this. He seemed to be caught a little bit off guard.

• 13:33Justin Wolfers?

  Yes.

• 13:33Ed Elson?

  And then he said, oh yeah, it might happen, but it might happen through tax cuts. And that really was the tell, I think, that this is not going to happen. And he's kind of just shitposting.

• 13:46Justin Wolfers?

  All the money that goes out of this administration is already gone. It went into one big, beautiful bill and it went to rich people and their tax cuts.

• 13:52Ed Elson?

  Exactly.

• 13:53Justin Wolfers?

  I have a question for you. I know this is your show, Ed. Can I ask you a question anyway?

• 13:57Ed Elson?

  Please.

• 13:59Justin Wolfers?

  How should we talk about nonsense? I'm not being funny. I mean, you're a totally serious economics commentator and I'm a semi-serious one. This thing's on the front page of newspaper. The President of the United States said it out loud, but he clearly hadn't even said anything to his Treasury Secretary.

• 14:15Ed Elson?

  Yes.

• 14:15Justin Wolfers?

  What do we do? What is our role? What truths can we tell? How seriously should we take nonsense? I mean, it's, it's the President, but it's nonsense. But sometimes he does nonsense.

• 14:25Ed Elson?

  Well, this is part of the problem, isn't it? And that's why I appreciate you making jokes about it because it deserves to be made fun of. Versus, versus trying to come up with a very serious, formal argument as to why it doesn't make sense. I mean, it's a joke of an argument to begin with. So let's, let's, let's be comedic in our rebuttal. So I, I like how you're talking about it. I'll tell you that much.

• 14:50Justin Wolfers?

  I don't find it funny every day, man.

• 14:52Ed Elson?

  Yeah.

• 14:53Justin Wolfers?

  Uh, and I don't want to bring the mood down because I love having fun with you. But, and, and it is funny, like, here's a weird thing that's happened to me. People have come up to me recently, say, hey, Justin, you're really funny. I'll tell you a funny thing about me and I'm not funny. Stop laughing. I'm not funny. I've never cracked a joke on national television. The only thing, including this, we can go back and look at the transcript. I promise I didn't tell a joke. The only thing that I've done is said out loud.

• 15:20Ed Elson?

  The truth.

• 15:21Justin Wolfers?

  It's happening. And it turns out, if you describe our reality, it's so absurd that people fu- people laugh.

• 15:28Ed Elson?

  That's right. Stranger than fiction and funnier than fiction. That's right.

• 15:33Justin Wolfers?

  What a world.

• 15:34Ed Elson?

  Well, uh, Justin, we're, we're, we're due for a longer conversation very soon. But we have to let you go. Uh, we appreciate you helping us make sense of this and how ridiculous this all is. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

• 15:49Justin Wolfers?

  It's.

• 15:51Ed Elson?

  After the break, a look at the rivalry between OpenAI and Anthropic. If you're enjoying the show, give Prof G Markets a follow.

• 16:06Speaker 00

  This episode is brought to you by Michelob Ultra. Good times mean competitions between you and your friends. Like seeing who can throw some pigskin the farthest or rush the field the fastest. Winner gets an ultra because it's not just a superior light beer. It's also giving fans superior access to their favorite sporting events. Superior is worth playing for. Visit michelobultra.com/superioraccess to enter. Enjoy responsibly. Copyright 2026 Anheuser Busch InBev Michelob Ultra Beer, St. Louis, Missouri.

• 16:35Speaker 06

  Here's your report.

• 16:36Speaker 01

  Oh, thanks, Jane. I wish I could hire someone just like you.

• 16:39Speaker 06

  Try LinkedIn Hiring Pro. It's more than a job board. It's like the recruiter you always wished you had. Hiring Pro uses real time insights to match your role to LinkedIn's unique network of professionals and delivers a shortlist of best fit candidates. You'll spend less time sorting applicants and more time talking to the right people.

• 16:55Speaker 01

  Let's do it. You're irreplaceable, Jane, but another you would be great.

• 16:59Speaker 06

  Hire right the first time. Post your job for free on LinkedIn today at LinkedIn.com/quality.

• 17:06Speaker 07

  Low energy, unfocused, foggy, you might be dehydrated. Whether it's hot yoga, over 100 degree weather, or too much sun. Gator Light, with a specialized blend of five electrolytes, was scientifically designed to help move fluids into the body faster for rapid rehydration. Shop now at retailers nationwide. Gator Light: hydrates faster than water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.

• 17:39Ed Elson?

  We're back with Prof G Markets. New documents from OpenAI and Anthropic reveal the vastly different business approaches of the two most valuable AI startups in the world. According to reports obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Sam Altman is pursuing an aggressive spending plan, while Dario Amode is taking a far more cautious approach. Anthropic is on track to break even by 2028, while OpenAI projects $74 billion in operating losses that same year, about three quarters of its revenue. The documents also show that OpenAI expects to burn through 14 times as much cash as Anthropic before making a profit in 2030.

• 18:20Ed Elson?

  So for a deeper dive into this rivalry between OpenAI and Anthropic, we are speaking with Alex Heath, author of the Sources newsletter and co-host of the Access Podcast. Alex, good to see you again.

• 18:32Alex Heath?

  Good to see you, Ed.

• 18:33Ed Elson?

  We want to get your reactions to this new data that we learned from The Wall Street Journal. They're really digging into how the Anthropic business really works. And what we're really learning is Anthropic is reining in the spending, or at least planning to. They intend to break even by 2028. Total opposite of what we're seeing over at OpenAI. Let's just start with your initial reactions.

• 18:59Alex Heath?

  I'm not surprised by this because they're very different businesses. Anthropic is majority B2B enterprise, right? It's 80-ish percent of their business. OpenAI, on the other hand, is a massive consumer business where the vast majority of OpenAI's users, and I feel like every time I come On as we talk about ads and chat GPT, but it really does come down to this. The vast majority of OpenAI's users are not making money for the company. They're actually a cost suck, right? Because most people are using chat GPT for free. Whereas most of Anthropic's business is selling an API to companies that are buying its AI to power their products. And also Anthropic is not doing a lot of the things that OpenAI is. They're not doing consumer hardware with Johnny Ive.

• 19:44Alex Heath?

  They're doing nothing multimodal. They're doing nothing in audio, really. Video generation, image generation, they're staying out of it. When you talk to people in the industry, everyone understands that Anthropic is solely really focused on the coding market. It's the thing that they are winning at. OpenAI is certainly trying to nip at their heels, but there's just, there's tremendous opportunity in coding by itself. I'm not trying to say that that's all Anthropic is doing. But certainly, when you look at the growth profile of the company, it's, it's coding. It's Claude Code, it's the coding agents. And OpenAI is just doing a lot more. And Altman, I think, wants to be seen as, you know, the next multi-trillion dollar, multi-platform tech conglomerate. Whereas you've just got more focus with Anthropic and what they're doing.

• 20:29Ed Elson?

  Yeah. Very interesting, also, given what happened last week where Sam Altman was asked by Brad Gussner. I don't know if you saw this about how he was going to pay for the one and a half trillion dollars in spending. And he had this very frantic response, which went viral. Scott and I talked about it. I, I'd love to get your reactions to how that unfolded and, and what did you think of his response to that question?

• 20:54Alex Heath?

  Sam is good at the theatrics. I know for a fact that he was not surprised by that question, that that was a question that he'd been asked privately. So I think there were some theatrics involved. I don't really think he was being knee jerk defensive, as you could read into it. I think it was a little bit of a, a kitschy thing. That said, it's certainly, you know, you could make the argument that it's not a good look for the CEO of the most important company AI. Maybe arguably the most important company in the world right now to react that way to. A very fair question from a large shareholder, which is how are you going to pay for all this? Uh, and saying, you know, basically, trust me, bro, uh, does not end your confidence when, uh, you know, we're seeing all these deals

• 21:38Alex Heath?

  that are not based on current revenue like you talk about on the show all the time. So, uh, in hindsight, I'm sure he wishes he could, uh, have said it a different way. I mean, I think he even tweeted about that, that he, you know, you had, you had multiple follow-ups from him and Sarah Fryer in the last week or two, which I think just shows how on pins and needles, everyone is about everything that comes out of OpenAI's leadership's mouse.

• 22:01Ed Elson?

  Yeah. But then right after we saw these comments from Sarah Fryer separately at this Wall Street Journal conference where she, she brought out the, the, the word backstop or federal backstop. Um, essentially saying, how do you pay for it? You get the government to pay for it. What did you make of, of, of that news?

• 22:21Alex Heath?

  I saw the walk back of that, uh, as I'm sure everyone else did. Uh, if you go back and listen to that part of the interview, it's not like a flub. It's not like something that could be interpreted as maybe she meant something else. There was actually a moment where the interview even like pushed to clarify and she was like, yeah, yeah, like a backstop. Like I, I went back and watched it because I was like, was this just something you could infer? I think it was a trial balloon. You know, I'm not saying this is like reporting. I have to back this up right at, right now, but, uh, it's a very, you know, this is a thing companies do all the time is they trial balloon ideas. Um, and do I think OpenAI would love a government backstop? If it could get one, sure. Why wouldn't you? Um, it would certainly help with the funding they need to do.

• 23:01Alex Heath?

  I think the visceral reaction to that comment was maybe a sign to them that, uh, there's not appetite there for that.

• 23:07Ed Elson?

  Uh, in related OpenAI news, SoftBank announced it is selling its remaining Nvidia stake, almost $6 billion. Um, supposedly the money's going to be used to fund AI efforts, likely, um, OpenAI, an investment in OpenAI or some, something of the sort. Um, we also just wanted to get your reactions to, to that news, which is really moving markets. I mean, Nvidia is down today, kind of bringing down the whole market with it.

• 23:36Alex Heath?

  It's crazy how twitchy everyone is, right? That comments like these, I mean, this is more than a comment, right? But that this stuff can move markets this way. I mean, very cynically, the take could be that SoftBank is selling its Nvidia stake to fund companies whose main capex is buying Nvidia chips.

• 23:56Alex Heath?

  Also, like, you know, SoftBank is gonna have its most profitable year, I think, since like 2020. And a lot of that has contributed from its OpenAI investment, which it is writing the valuation for, helping to set by leading this massive round. You've been talking about round tripping a lot on this show. I'm not trying to suggest this is exactly round tripping, but there is a very circular nature to all of this. I wouldn't necessarily look at this, and I'm pretty sure the SoftBank executives were clear on their earnings call, like that this is anything specific about Nvidia. SoftBank is super levered everywhere. It's like a octopus of leverage. It's hard to keep track of everything they're doing and how they're trying to finance everything.

• 24:37Alex Heath?

  And they're putting tens of billions in OpenAI this year, so they needed liquidity and they were pretty confident about that. I mean, Masa famously, I don't know if you remember this, he got out of Nvidia right before the ChatGPT boom.

• 24:50Ed Elson?

  Right.

• 24:51Alex Heath?

  And had he held, that stake alone would be worth like over $200 billion. So the timing of SoftBank's buying and selling, I don't think should necessarily set the broader market. They also did WeWork. I mean, there's, you could point to a lot of great moves and a lot of bad moves. I wouldn't say it's a consistent one way or the other. It's very erratic.

• 25:11Ed Elson?

  Yeah, well, it is funny. He used the money that he got from the Nvidia sale to buy shares in WeWork. And now he's using the money from this Nvidia sale to buy shares, perhaps in OpenAI.

• 25:26Ed Elson?

  And look, other people have been making that comparison. It's not me, but I'm not, I'm not saying that is the right comparison to make. It is striking. And my final question to you, Alex, I saw you last week at your launch party for sources. I had to leave on the earlier end. How did it go?

• 25:46Alex Heath?

  Oh, man. Poker was poker was very fun, but I shouldn't comment.

• 25:51Ed Elson?

  You brought the poker tables out.

• 25:52Alex Heath?

  Yeah, we brought poker, but I shouldn't comment on how I, how I ended. It could have been a lot worse, but, you know, whatever, it's a party.

• 26:03Ed Elson?

  Yeah, that was my favorite part. I walk in and there is a room that is that is dedicated to poker. But yeah, I support it. We'll have you at the next game. Absolutely. Love it. Okay. Alex Heath, author of the sources news center, co-host of the access podcast. Alex, always appreciate your time. Thanks so much, Ed.

• 26:28Ed Elson?

  Well, we all know Anthropic, we all know Claude, their chatbot, but this is very interesting reporting from the Wall Street Journal because it is giving us one of the first very clear side by side views of Anthropic's business and OpenAI's business. We now know the differences, not just in terms of what they're building in AI, but how they are building in AI, their R and D plans, their business strategy, their spending plans. And it really is a tale of two companies. On the one hand, you have a company that doesn't seem to care at all about spending, that is OpenAI. And on the other hand, a company that seems to care quite a lot, a company that is on track to be profitable in just a couple of years. And

• 27:12Ed Elson?

  that is significant because up until this point, the assumption in AI has been you have to spend obscene amounts of money. That is a given at this point. But here we are. Here we have an AI juggernaut that is massively successful, that has proven its commercial value, that is growing very quickly, and that seems to have a far more measured approach to spending. Yes, they're still spending a lot, but Anthropic spending doesn't come even close to OpenAI. They're two very, very different approaches. Now, up until this point, OpenAI has been the winner. $500 billion valuation, not only getting a lot of usage,

• 27:54Ed Elson?

  but also telling a very exciting story. OpenAI is the undisputed heavyweight champion of AI. But as we discussed on Monday, That narrative might be running out of steam. The spending is getting out of control. Sam Altman is having these public meltdowns on these podcasts and investors are beginning to show some signs of anxiety. And it's all coming to fruition this week where we saw a big spike in big tech bond yields. We're seeing the highest spread on these bonds since liberation day. Why? Because investors are getting increasingly concerned about all of the spending on AI. We're also seeing some wariness in the AI stocks. Nvidia fell as much as 9% this week.

• 28:37Ed Elson?

  Core We fell more than 20%. We're seeing increased short interest in AI stocks, including, of course, Michael Burry's now infamous short position on Nvidia and Palantir. And even outside of the stock market, people are getting anxious. Look at Google search volume, for example, for AI bubble. That is up 10x from six months ago. Jeff Bezos, David Solomon, Bill Gates, many other leaders are publicly acknowledging that we are probably in a bubble. Put another way, the narrative on AI is beginning to waver. And a trillion dollar AI spending plan, it just isn't quite what it used to be. It doesn't sound as sexy as it did, say, 12 months ago.

• 29:22Ed Elson?

  And that may well mean pain for OpenAI, which has, of course, been leading this charge. But more importantly, it might mean new opportunities, opportunities for other companies that are taking a different approach, companies that are reining in their spending, companies that are getting their costs under control. It might mean the beginning of the rise of a new heavyweight champion, a new AI winner. And when you look at these documents that the Wall Street Journal has just released, it does look like that winner could well be anthropic.

• 30:00Ed Elson?

  Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Our research team is Dan Shalan, Isabella Kinsel, Chris No Donahue and Mia Silverio. And our technical director is Drew Burrows. Thank you for listening to Prof G Markets from Prof G Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.

• 30:29Speaker 09

  Now at Kroger, your points add up to more ways to save every trip. Use them your way to take dollars off groceries at checkout or save at the pump. You can even save up to $35 on your next fill-up. Same points, more choices. And with low prices on fresh, quality food, plus digital and personalized offers tailored to how you shop, your dollar goes further. Redeem your points online or in the app. Kroger, fresh for everyone. Restrictions apply. See site or store for details. Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax, and let go of whatever you're carrying today.

• 31:07Speaker 10

  Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-CONTACTS. Oh my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-CONTACTS.com today to save on your first order.

• 31:27Speaker 11

  1-800-CONTACTS. A single click, a ransomware attack, a business lockdown, a demand for Bitcoin. These are real threats financial advisors are facing today. Hear how AI is transforming cybercrime, why these attacks are accelerating, and what advisors can do to protect their business, their clients, and their future. Tune in to If You Could for what's next.