OpenAI Says “AGI” Is Here — What Does That Actually Mean?

Have you ever wondered why a band as big as Fleetwood Mac would break up? Well, I'm Will Anderson, and this week on My Music History Podcast, the Monday Music Club. We dive into that question and all the drama surrounding Stevie Nicks, Lindsey Buckingham, and the rest of Fleetwood Mac. Jump in and listen to this week's episode. All you have to do is search Monday Music Club right now wherever you get your podcasts. What is a life worth? Calculating dollars isn't the tough part. The tough part is the emotion and the stories you hear about life-sun fairness. I'm Pete Barara. And this week Ken Feinberg, one of the nation's foremost mediators and special master of the federal 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, joins me to discuss his reflections on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The episode is out now. Search and follow stay tuned with Pete wherever you get your podcasts. If money is evil then that building is hell. Welcome to Profty Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is September 8th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. US markets were closed for Labor Day, but stock futures fell as the US and Iran escalated their attacks. Brent Crude climbed towards $98 per barrel. Copper hit an all-time high on the prospect that Trump will expand his tariffs on the metal. And finally, the Japanese yen rose to its highest level since February as the dollar fell. Okay, what else is happening? Open AI's newest and most powerful model is officially here, GPT-6 Astra. Released on Friday, Astra was trained on more than 100,000 Nvidia GPUs at the Stargate Data Center in Texas. That makes it the largest training run in Open AI's history and it costs two and a half times the cost of Open AI's previous model. Astra represents a large advance in capabilities for Open AI at across the AI industry, leaders have been celebrating. In response to the model, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said that artificial general intelligence or AGI has "arrived." Meanwhile, Open AI's President Greg Brockman said, "Welcome to the AGI era describing Astra as a generational leap." Now, if Astra is indeed AGI, and that would be a very big deal, as many AI researchers have specifically cited AGI as the milestone that might change society forever. So, I'm Artman, for example, once said that AGI could quote "break capitalism." Meanwhile, Stuart Russell, a prominent AI scientist, has said that when we achieve AGI, human wages will quote "go to zero." Well, AGI has supposedly arrived, but capitalism and wages remain intact, which would imply one of two things. Either the industry's predictions about AGI were wildly wrong, or this isn't really AGI. Here to give us his view, we are speaking with Gary Marcus, author, scientist, entrepreneur, and emeritus professor of psychology and neuroscience at NYU. Gary, thank you so much for joining us on the show. I'd like to just start with your reactions to the model itself, Astra. What do you make of it? Can you describe some of its capabilities, and then we will get into whether or not it is artificial general intelligence, AGI? In terms of the model itself, it's a bit better than the models before. What we have now is an era where some people call it benchmark maxing, or benchmarking, where these systems are often, it would appear, trained on lots of benchmarks. They do really well on the benchmarks, and then they don't typically do as well in the real world. So, every time we see the phenomena, the same phenomena, model comes out, everybody's super excited about it. And then, after a few days, people are like, "Yeah, but I tried it, and it doesn't really work on this, it doesn't really work on that." It deleted by files. The code is for shit. The code is for shit is something I saw about Astra yesterday on Twitter. Some people will like it, some people won't. But every model is hyped as if it's this quantum leap forward. And it never turns out to be true. Each new model is better than the last one. There's no doubt about that. Astra is better than Fable, its competitor on a bunch of measures. In real-world practice, it's better on some, and not others, based on people's different account. It used to be when a new model came out. I would personally test a lot of things about it. But now, the scope of what people want to do with them is so vast that one person can do that. And you sort of have to see what the world's experience with it is. And what the world's experience has been with all prior models is they don't live up to expectations. We've talked about this before. The return on investment isn't there. Certainly, we just haven't dropped to zero. Instead, we have what I call the Clarna effect, which is Clarna said they were going to get rid of a bunch of humans, and then they quietly walk that back and started rehiring humans. We've now seen that dozens of times. We may see a version of the Clarna effect with Astra where a bunch of people say we're going to live off a bunch of people, then quietly rehire them. Going back to your opening question, if this were really AGI, let's put an asterisk on that, what do you mean by AGI? We'll come back to that in a second. Then yeah, I guess you would expect wages to drop to zero. I mean, assuming that the AI itself were cheap enough and we could argue about that, the thing is that there's what I would call the AGI bait and switch. There's a way that the term was originally initially defined, which was basically that you could do any cognitive work that a human could do. That would indeed, assuming the price was right, be pretty valuable. I mean, even if it costs just as much as humans, maybe it would still be valuable because you could make them work all the time with less requirements and so forth. The bait and switch, and then people will panic about that in various ways. We're going to lose all our jobs or they're going to take over humanity or whatever. All of these are premised on let's call it a generous version of AGI. They really could do everything that people do. Then there's the less generous version of AGI. The least generous version is something like it can do most of the things that the drunk guy at the bar can do when he's human. So let's just call that AGI. So you have a lower bound and an upper bound, maybe that's being a little bit crude about it, but there's the kind of like, is vergy on superintelligence? Oh my god, there's nothing I as an individual human being can do anymore today. I can't, and there's the version where I can do a bunch of the things that I can do, but I can't let you all of them. It does a few things better than me, but I do a few better. I can't really trust it, but I just wanted for marketing purposes, call it AGI. That's what we have now, right? Is the marketing version of AGI. There's a historical literature, and you can think about these things in different ways. There's a historical literature about what AGI meant when people like Ben Gerzel and Peter Voss, you know, first coin the return and Chainleg, who's a co-founder of DeepMine. Then we're talking about the strong version that I was talking about that it could do anything. And then you have different people have tried to weaken it in different ways. People use me of goalposts shifting, and I always like, which goalposts did I shift? And they always leave the conversation then, can't actually document the claims, even though I write all the time. But I can document how this goalpost has shifted, right? Because I can go and show you where people talk about originally, or I can give you my own goalposts. For example, I said, it should be able to watch a movie and understand what's going on. Nobody's ever showed me that, like, Asterik and watch a movie and tell me what's going on as well as Aiz Goldstein, right? That was one of my targets, examples in 2014. It's 12 years later, we can't do that. I haven't shifted the goalposts. So, you know, one way to think about it historically, has it met those historical things? No. Another way to think about it is how is the history changed? Well, after an original period, all the way up until 2023, when people pretty much agree that it meant, like, doing whatever people could do, in 2024 is about when I see it's starting to happen. People started talking about it economically. So, I know Vina Koshlo was interested in this. He was, I guess, on the board of OpenAI, or at least he was an investor in OpenAI, and I think he pushed for definition, which is, like, can do 80% of the work that humans can do. We haven't met that one, either, right? You know, it can do maybe a bunch of tasks that people can do, but doing a whole job is harder. Eric Bringelson has always made the distinction between doing tasks and doing jobs. There are lots of tasks that current AI can do. I don't doubt that. It may be some of them even reliably. Certainly, it's not really a task, but it can write rhymes or whatever, make a song about such and such. That's not really somebody's job, right? You could do that, but it's not a job, right? A job typically involves a lot of things. A different way to think about this is, like, what is it doing for you? You know, if you have a term that term does something for you, let's say, scientifically, right? So, you've had a term like mass, that's in the context of a theory, and now you can, you know, make some calculations at all to it. So, you know, you could have a theory about economic change. You just gave one at the beginning, right? The theory about economic change is the wages will go to zero once you have AGI. Well, if you want to call what we have now AGI, then that theory is wrong, because really what you've done is you've bastardized the definition, such as it doesn't mean anything anymore. When the AGI now means it's like the thing that they want to sell you on this week. And then the last thing I'll say about this is, it's not just this week, but many weeks. So, I started cloning a list today. I didn't finish. But of all the times that people have declared the DJI has arrived going back to I think 2023, like Tyler Cowan said, '03, a model that nobody would take seriously anymore was AGI and Sam Alman said, we know how to build AGI at the beginning of 2025. Jensen, everybody went nuts when he said that Astro was AGI, but he said, on Lex Friedman six months earlier that AGI had arrived. So like, which is a Jensen, right? Like, so you can make these announcements, the cost of making these announcements is not just zero, it's that it drives up the stock price, but there's nothing intellectually coherent that stems from it the way that people are talking about it right now. You describe it as a bait and switch, which does sound quite out because this is something that a lot of these people were emphasizing for years as an extremely important term, an extremely important definition that would be a moment that would change our society, change humanity forever, Sam Alman being one of them. However, we just heard him on a podcast with Alex Heath and Alex Austin about AGI, Austin about whether that, what that means and how important it is. And his response was quite different here is what he said. I mean, at best you could say it's a very poorly defined term. I was going to say it's like an irrelevant marketing term. Well, last I checked, Gerald Charter defines it as a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. I think there are many people that would look at current models and say like, okay, it's there. Yeah. Do you think it's there? Sort of close at least. I've heard varying versions of what people on your team say. I think there are a lot of people who would like look at our latest internal models and say this is like very AGI. Like I think there are people who would say, here's something I can point to that it doesn't do. It's really bad at and it's not. Just listen to all the kind of wildness there. You know, first he says it can't be defined. Then he says maybe it's met it. Then he uses a term like AGI like he points to some people and his company say it like you know, he never comes out and says I think it's this and it is met this for this reason. He just sort of you know, dances all over the place. He might have to listen to the clip twice to really hear that in it. But that is what he's doing. He's avoiding any commitment around it. He's pushing it off to other people. And ultimately he's taking this term AGI like which means nothing, right? And he's made up this new term. What is AGI like? I mean, you know, there's no, there's just, there's no there there. And again, it's only interesting if it has some consequence in the world, right? Either it fits in with an intellectual debate and you have to stick with the terms of intellectual debate or you make a prediction about economics that follows from there. None of that's happening. And again, it's not changing the world economically the way that these folks said. I think if we really did have AGI, here are some things you might expect. You might expect wages to drop. You might expect unemployment to go up. You might expect that we could rely on agents. Like, you know, one guy proposed on Twitter today the pizza test. You should be able to ask any AI system order me a pizza and you should figure out, you know, where you live, how to order the pizza and who's open and whatever. And like, that's not that hard. But, you know, anybody who's played around with these agents know you can't really trust that. I mean, even shopping has been hard for them. You know, they don't know which menu to click on and things like that. And so all of these systems asking for agents then we do things that you don't need that, you don't need a PhD to do those kinds of things. Those systems are not reliable. Their AGI like what that means is some of the time they do it and you're amazed that it does it. But they're not AGI itself. If they can't do them reliably, you know, in the way that human could them. That was the definition all along is, you have to be able to do it, you know, like an intelligent human can and they just don't. It seems that if they're using it as a marketing tactic to use this poorly defined term that can mean basically anything and perhaps it could mean the entire world changing at that point. Maybe you start thinking about how incredible the AI future is going to be et cetera, et cetera. They use this marketing tactic in expectation. As you said, that is going to drive up the value of their companies. If we say that we have achieved AGI then suddenly everyone's going to use our models and suddenly we're all going to become rich. Is there a point at which people no longer buy it? Is there a point at which people hear the term AGI, they hear the term artificial general intelligence? The new one is recursive self-improvement that I hear a lot. And is there a point at which people say, I don't think that that's interesting. I don't think that's meaningful. And therefore I'm not interested. I mean, I guess yes and no. There's different populations of people and different populations of people have different motivations. The average person I think in the United States is actually kind of fed up. The average person in the United States is kind of like, this is not actually doing that much for me. And I don't want to get a center in my neighborhood and forget it. So the views of the average people have changed. There is however a class of people that make investments. And I think a lot of them like these stories. And there's this whole meme stock thing that's been going on for a while now. This is not the beginning of it. And you can think of things like GameStop. I think social media has driven them. And in the meme stock world, these kind of pronouncements often drive things up. And so like every time that Elon has said that driverless cars are imminent, and he said it like 15 times in the last, or probably more than that. But he said it annually pretty much every year since 2014. Every time he says that, it drives the stock up. I mean, you could ask what is the stock market such that it still responds when he says those things given that he doesn't really have credibility around them anymore. And so there's some population of people out there. I don't know if they're trading on the notion that the cars are actually imminent or the notion that other people will believe that so I should buy this stock. You know, so the stock market become almost as meta thing. What might other people believe? You and I, I think talked about SpaceX a little. And I loved your riffs on SpaceX on Twitter. There's no way that it's worth what it's value right now. If you look at it in financial terms, but you could make sense of it in terms of, well, I think other suckers will buy it at this price. So I'll buy it in order to flip it. Then maybe it makes sense. But if other people believe that it's AGI, then perhaps it really is AGI. They don't even have to believe it's AGI. You could just say, well, I think that other people will believe this crap, even if I don't. And so that'll drive the stock up so I like, and like now you've lost any financial footing. And I think the problem with that is eventually it follows apart. And then somebody gets left holding the bad. And clearly, the goal here is to have retail investors hold the bag. Gary Marcus is author, scientist, entrepreneur, and emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at NYU. Gary, appreciate your time. Thank you. That should be here. Off to the break. A closer look at the jobs report. Support for the show comes from Vanta. When you run security for a company that's scaling fast, the stakes just keep climbing. More compliance frameworks, more vendors, more risk, and a board that wants to see it all in one place. But your compliance data can be all over the place. Controls in one tool, vendor risk in another, customer commitments, bear it in contracts. Your team has to spend more time stitching it all together and less time running the program. And every quarter, you're basing decisions on last quarter's data. Vanta connects it all. It's market-leading, agent-to-trust platform is built for enterprise scale with 400 plus integrations and continuous monitoring. Vanta automates evidence collection, services the risk, the matter, and organizes your audit around your auditor's requirements. And that Vanta agent works around the clock from full program context, so nothing slips through the cracks. The numbers back this up. Vanta delivers a 526% return on investment over three years and pays for itself in three months. Vanta is trusted by more than 16,000 companies, including Snowflake, Atlassian, and RAM. Learn more at Vanta.com/Markets. That's spelled V-A-N-T-A.com/Markets. Support for the show comes from Delete Me. Nowadays, it's so easy for scammer stalkers and hackers to try and harvest your data. But it's important to remember there are always ways to protect yourself. That starts with protecting your data and Delete Me can help you do just that. Delete Me does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from Data Broker's websites. It was named the Top Pick for Data Removal Services by Wirecutter. Our producer, Jennifer Sanchez, has tried Delete Me and she had very nice things to say about it. Also, I've used it. I've enlisted, I didn't even know they were sponsor, and I decided I should probably create some digital hygiene across the ecosystem. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joinDeleteMe.com/PropG and use promo code ProvG at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joinDeleteMe.com/PropG and enter code ProvG at checkout. That's joinDeleteMe.com/PropG code ProvG. - Hi, I'm Bella Freud. Each week on Fashion Neurosus, I invite guests from the world of fashion, art, film, music, sport, and literature to lie on my couch and explore the connection between identity and fashion. This week on Fashion Neurosus, I welcome Charlie XCX. To be childlike as an adult, I think, takes a lot of bravery because there's always this fear of being embarrassed, I suppose. You also have to kind of like be willing to completely fall on your face, all the time, pursuing that child likeness can sometimes really open you up to ideas that maybe you would feel too embarrassed to have if you weren't doing that. And I think that's quite scary, but a really beautiful thing. Find fashion neurosis on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. We're back with Profty Markets. The Orgis Jobs report came in and it was much stronger than expected. The economy added 162,000 jobs nearly three times economists' expectations and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%. The gains were mainly concentrated in food services and drinking places. Yes, that is actually a technical term. And local government education still stocks slipped and the two-year treasury yield jumped after the report as a stronger labor market gives the Fed cover to raise rates. Odds are a hike this month on now at 52% on Kalshi. So joining us to discuss the state of the labor market, we are speaking with Catherine and Edwards, labor economist and host of the Optimist Economy Podcast. Catherine, thank you very much for joining us. I want to jump right into this Jobs report. 162,000 jobs added in August, the unemployment rate stayed steady at 4.1%. I saw an interesting analysis of this report that was on CNBC from Wendy Edelberg, who was a Brookings economist. She was not very convinced by these numbers. She was expressing some doubts about them. I want to play you this clip and then let's jump into it. My guess is that these numbers get relaxed now. I am very puzzled actually by the strength in the payroll numbers. So at 71,000 on average for the last three months, that's like seven times faster than the pace of job growth last year. I see nothing else in the labor market that suggests that kind of pickup and activity. In other words, too strong to be true, therefore, must be revised down. Perhaps a fair claim? I don't know. What do you make of those comments? I think that she is really hitting on something, which is that the rest of the report was fairly weak beyond the big headline numbers. Even though the revision was definitely to the labor market's favor, a lot of the kind of real meat of the Jobs report is just where are we adding jobs? Are we seeing those dividends get to workers in that we're draining people from unemployment or people joining the labor force in mass and you're seeing wages go up? The unemployment rate itself is important, but it's often much more important for the things we expect to see happen when it's lower steady. The jobs number is important, but it's more important for all the things we expect to see when it's really high. I think what she's getting at is those other things we expected to see. We really didn't. It could come down to revisions. I don't know if my revisions are hard to me to speculate on because the summer months in particular can be very volatile, but at the same time we're in an economy that is holding pretty close to steady. You're trying to measure something holding still and you'll have certain industries. We'll have a big summer of bad month, a big month of bad month, people stop working at schools in the summertime and then they rejoin, but maybe the schedule shifted. These very small movements can have a large effect on the headline number because this is not the same thing as a quarter million jobs have been added for the last 15 months. We've been so close to zero the influences of what will push the number up or down. If we were otherwise adding 200 or 250,000 jobs, we wouldn't notice the small fluctuations, but now they're all of our focus because they're driving the overall number. I think she's hitting on something that I'm sure a lot of people listening to have struggled in the labor market can tell you, "I don't care what that unemployment rate says, it's not good right now." Just on these month to month numbers, part of my takeaway is that I'm not sure if we should take any of these numbers that seriously or at least I'm not sure exactly how important they are in terms of our understanding of the fundamental health of the economy because we recently had jobs reports that were seemingly quite bad and then suddenly we have a jobs report that is seemingly quite great and does that tell me much? I'm not so sure, so what does it tell you if anything? How seriously should we take these month to month jobs reports? You know, any one month is overinterpreted. Absolutely. And I think people put way too much emphasis on what I would call the point estimate coming out in any number. You know, and better than expected and worse than expected, tends to be dominated by what a set of random economists predict in a monthly survey and is by no mean like the mood on the ground. So what I, you know, what I always say is just step back and look for the trend as opposed to the point. And the trend that we've seen in the labor market, I think that every jobs report has been quite informative of and they send to they're filling in the same space every time, which is that our economy is not growing well, but there's a big difference between falling off a cliff and a recession and growing at a fast clip. And that's where we've been for a very historically long period of time. I think that uncertainty in so many aspects of our economic policy is weighing on many agents and actors in our economy and everybody is waiting for the next thing. So you have these like massive overtake or overinterpretation of the job market numbers, but really it's just people wanting to know when the Fed is going to do what it said it's going to do. And they're less interested in the labor market as a state of the world and more interested in whether or not the jobs report gives the Fed room to lower or raise interest rates, which is what what they're really interested in. I think that the labor market on its own has been telling a very consistent story, which is that it's weak. It's been weak and it's been slowing down since the summer of 2022. It hasn't hasn't had broad enough or rapid enough decline to be to warrant a recession, but in a lot of ways it looks like one. I was talking with Guy Berger on Friday and we were saying that the increase in the number of unemployed over the past three years is on par with a kind of like mild recession. That doesn't mean that we're in one. It just means that the that is what the labor market has been indicating a very gradual slowdown and overall weakness. So I think you know, you've got to put the points on the line and that's where the real outlier comes from unless so the market expectations or the economist survey expectations because I think they're really speaking to the aspect of which a number comes out on a Friday and it's closer to betting than it is a report on the labor market's quality. What are some of the data points that you are focusing on in terms of actually measuring the health of the labor market? You mentioned the number of unemployed, which is not going in the right direction right now, but I think people talk about the unemployment rate, which for my understanding isn't terrible. There's of course the labor force participation rate. There are all these different things that we can look at and then make a valued judgment as to whether they're going in the right direction or the wrong direction. What are your favorite things to look at? Yeah, the length of unemployment. So not just how many people are unemployed, but how long they've been unemployed and the the share that have been looking for six months or more. Both of those numbers are way too high to call the labor market good. And they've been going in the wrong direction for a while. For people who are unemployed, it's taken a long time to find a job. I think at wage growth, right? Or we just is the labor market generating earnings for the people who are showing up every day and that wage growth has been weak to fair and it's now slipping behind inflation. And it's done that, you know, often on, but it's, you know, anytime wage growth falls below price growth, that means that every American just got a pay cut in real terms. That's a marker that's been particularly poor performing. And then I look at the labor force level and labor force participation rate amongst the prime age. And this one, I think, is where it's been, you know, particularly tough. We have over 1 million fewer prime age men in the labor force this month than we did last August. So you're seeing people get frustrated. You're seeing people leave. The labor market doesn't have a ton of moving around or it's not generating good wage growth. I'll also look at all the alternative measures of labor under utilization. So people who have, who say they want a job, people who say that they looked for a job, but just not in the last four weeks. So they're not technically unemployed. And then people who have said they've just given up. And none of those are really showing a, they're not flashy red, but they're all on the same trend of this is a very weak labor market, especially for job seekers. This is a timely discussion because we're speaking on the evening of Labor Day. And I just want to point you to a statement from President Trump talking about Labor Day. He put this out on truth social. He said, quote, that there are too many non-working holidays in America. And that it is costing our country billions of dollars to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don't want it either essentially coming out against Labor Day. Given that this is your area of expertise, you are a labor market economist. And what do you make of the importance or not importance of Labor Day in America? He's president right now, but at his core, he's kind of a charlatan businessman who, you know, was guilty of wage theft. He was a union investor is terribly anti-union. I mean, this, if you're looking. Inside this guy's heart, the working class is not there and workers are not in it. And anyone who has ever worked at a job site would have been able to tell you that. So it doesn't really surprise me. There is something brazen about saying that it's cost businesses so much to give their workers a holiday, given that it's not a requirement in the United States that every worker get a paid holiday, a paid sick day, a paid vacation day. All of that is voluntary, which is why low-income workers don't get them. Sure, it's galling to say when the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour and has been, you know, that since the summer of 2009, but, you know, people don't change, not on the essentials. This guy doesn't care about workers and he never has. And you can look to his secretary of labor who had to resign and disgrace after being drunk on the job and, you know, terribly mismanaging the department and reading a culture of fear to know that he never really cared about them in the first place. Are there any merits to the, we're taking too many holidays discussion? Is that something that we should actually be talking about in America or is it just flat out wrong? It's flat out wrong. Yeah. I mean, every other peer country that we have considered in the organization of economic cooperation and development, these would be industrialized countries, not necessarily in Europe, but in countries we would consider our peers. We're the only ones that doesn't have required paid sick days. We also are the only ones that don't have required statutory vacation leave, which is why we take so little. In fact, we're taking less vacation days now than we did in the 1970s, but of course that's expected when unionization has fallen as have most basic worker protections and worker power writ large. I mean, such a wasted moment, this is this guy's thing, right? He's like so good at wasting the moment. This could have been an opportunity to talk about how the labor share of income has fallen to levels not seen in seven decades. And the reason why so many families are struggling is because they're just not bringing home enough money relative to what they need to buy to have a decent life. And rather than elevating people who feel ignored in their economy because they're struggling, they don't make $7 an hour. They make $75,000 a year and they can't make it work rather than elevating people who want to be seen and who need their economic experience validated, it's just erasing them through and through. Do you think that this is ultimately an intentional attempt to suppress workers to suppress labor? Do you think that this is potentially more insidious than a guy just kind of tweeting whatever random thought comes up in his head? I don't know. I mean, he doesn't have to be much more insidious than he already is. I don't know if it's got a change direction or degree. I mean, he puts someone in charge of the Department of Labor who, you know, where does wage and our enforcement come from? Right? Where does our monitoring of things like the employment of veterans and the employment of women and the employment of workers with a disability? This comes from a department whose job it is to monitor the health of the labor market beyond just one report that the stock market pays attention to. And it was, you know, gutted and eviscerated, right? Like it's, you attack the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you attack the Census Bureau because you don't want good numbers coming out because you're afraid of what they say or you just don't care. So I don't know if it's necessarily a change in direction or degree is very much on brand with, I need to erase anyone who disagrees with me and minimize what they're going through to make whatever I care about most important. I think all politicians do that to some degree. I think for a lot of people in the working class, it feels like a heel turn because he said he was for them, but he's never been for a single, you know, I would say policy that has been in the favor of the working class. Catherine Edwards is labor economist and host of the Optimist Economy podcast, Catherine. We always appreciate your time. Thank you. And much more optimistic on the show, I'll say. Try to put a good spin. That's where you go on her podcast, but not here. Yeah, with a little bit more lead time and runway, I'm able to, I'm able to spin this good, but you know, quick jobs day, hit like, oh, man, that wage growth number came in with that dropped like a lead balloon. Do you want to make a quick optimist pitch? Well, while we have a couple minutes, I think the theme of the show and what I try to explain every week is that one of the biggest obstacles that Americans face is how little their policy makers have tried. You know, we are not at the end of an era where we have done everything we can and now we're pulling our hair because nothing has worked. We just haven't, haven't done anything. It's truly that nothing has worked and nothing is what we have done, but there are so many policies sitting in drawers that are waiting to do Americans good to make the economy better and we don't have any of them on the federal level. And that doesn't mean what we want, it means that we could and so we have something to fight for. Go find out more at the Optimist Conrad podcast, Catherine. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Bye, all happy Labor Day. The fall rights just won a major election in Germany and many are calling it a turning point for the country. The German AFD party, infamous for its extreme positions on immigration, one 44% of an important regional election over the weekend. That was higher than any polls had predicted and it was also the best result for the AFD party since it was created in 2013. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called it the worst defeat for his party in years and politicians are now preparing for what might be a very different era in Germany. An era defined not by traditional liberal democracy, but by hard-line nationalism. Indeed, the AFD is more popular across the nation today than ever before. Now how did we get here? Well, Germany finds itself in a very difficult economic position. Their economy hasn't really grown for almost a decade. Two years ago it actually shrank and this year it is expected to grow less than 1%. Meanwhile, the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped to its lowest level in 10 years and investments in the nation have been falling. That is why so many Germans also attracted to the AFD party. They consider it to be the shake-up that their country really needs. But what actually is the AFD and how would it actually help? Well beyond the party's cultural views, which include teaching children less about Nazi history and more about traditional cultural heritage, the party's only real economic position is to crack down very aggressively on immigration. They've promised to carry out deportations and to build a remigration task force and even to build separate schools for refugee children. They believe that immigrants have caused this economic crisis and so they want the immigrants out. But putting aside any moral judgment of that position, it is also a fundamental misunderstanding of their own problem. The real reason the Germany is struggling right now is because they haven't been able to grow their economy. This is a function of overly conservative fiscal measures that didn't allow their government to borrow, along with overly bureaucratic regulation and overdependence on Russian energy and an aging and therefore dwindling population. Each of these factors have reduced innovation, productivity, entrepreneurship and therefore growth. But it wasn't because of immigrants. The truth is that the AFD is just another example of political laziness. They don't want to spend the time addressing the actual problems which are actually quite complicated. Instead, they would rather make a scapegoat out of one of the most frequently targeted groups in the history of humanity, which is, of course, immigrants. It's powerful because it's easy. You can say things like they are different from us. We are not like them, but it is also profoundly stupid. I saw this first hand growing up in the UK where the most economically disastrous decision in our nation's history, Brexit, was made out of a very similar anti-immigrant position. It didn't work. In fact, it made things worse, and today Britain has never been more economically insecure. So no. The AFD is not shaking things up in Germany. In fact, it is going down one of the most popular paths in the history of politics. Fewer immigrants, more insularity and ultimately an even slower economy. The AFD is a signal of what's to come, but let's be clear, it isn't good. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer, our video editor is Brad Williams, our research team is Dan Shalon, Cristino Donahue and Mia Salverio, and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profty Markets from Profty Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.