Newsletter comparison
Slow Boring vs Paul Krugman
Short answer: Choose Slow Boring for policy design and political tradeoffs across a wide agenda. Choose Paul Krugman for the economics behind tariffs, chips, fiscal choices, and power. Keep both if you want proposals tested as economics and as politics.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
An independent guide. Scottie isn't affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Slow Boring and Paul Krugman. Each publication owns its name, writing, and subscription terms.
A brief from both newsletters · July 31, 2026
See both newsletters in one brief
See what made the brief, what didn't, and the original links behind every included story.
In this brief: Scottie kept the selected stories separate because they added different value.
Reader priorities
A policy-minded reader wants to judge U.S. economic choices by evidence, distributional effects, political feasibility, and likely outcomes.
These are illustrative priorities, not a customer’s data.
What made the brief
- Slow Boring13 read · 3 included
- Paul Krugman7 read · 2 included
Scottie
Scottie example brief
July 31, 2026 · Executive brief
01 / The rundown
- Soaring billionaire wealth prompts renewed interest in wealth taxation to counter political influence and restore progressive tax structures.
- Subsidizing homeownership concentrates household financial risk and creates political obstacles to expanding affordable housing supply across the country.
02 / The briefing
01 / main
Billionaire wealth expansion drives fresh calls for wealth taxation
The takeaway: Billionaire net worth has surged dramatically relative to national income since 1982. This capital concentration enables outsized political spending, leading policy experts to advocate progressive wealth taxes to protect democratic governance.
Concrete details
- The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 rose from $92 billion in 1982 to $6.6 trillion in 2025.
- Billionaire families accounted for 19 percent of all political contributions during the 2024 election cycle.
Why it matters for this reader: Analyzing wealth concentration helps you weigh evidence on political feasibility and distributional outcomes in tax reform debates.
Original sourcesPaul Krugman
02 / main
Economists track structural shifts driving American wealth inequality
The takeaway: US household wealth now exceeds 500 percent of GDP, driven by decades of policy changes favoring capital over labor. Major tax cuts since the 1980s reduced top income and corporate rates, heavily concentrating top wealth.
Concrete details
- The top 0.1 percent wealth share expanded from 1 percent in 1980 to 7 percent today.
- Reagan tax cuts reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent.
Why it matters for this reader: Grounding inequality debates in empirical data allows you to judge economic choices by their true distributional effects.
Original sourcesPaul Krugman
03 / main
Rethinking housing policy to challenge traditional homeownership subsidies
The takeaway: Concentrating household savings into a single property contradicts standard financial diversification advice. Policy favoritism toward homeowners also creates political resistance against reforms needed to make housing broadly affordable.
Concrete details
- Encouraging homeownership forces families to put a massive share of savings into one non-diversified asset.
- Subsidizing owners creates conflicting incentives between preserving private home value gains and lowering housing costs.
Why it matters for this reader: Evaluating housing policy through economic evidence helps you identify how government subsidies cause unintended market dysfunctions.
Original sourcesSlow Boring
04 / main
Spot pricing offers electricity savings but faces consumer resistance
The takeaway: Exposing residential consumers to spot electricity prices would lower average power bills and balance grid demand. However, sudden price spikes make the reform politically toxic despite its economic efficiency benefits.
Concrete details
- Residential consumers currently pay annualized average rates that run significantly higher than wholesale spot prices.
- Maine spot electricity prices recently dipped negative due to congestion, while smoky conditions spiked New England rates.
Why it matters for this reader: This trade-off illustrates the challenge of political feasibility when designing market-driven policy solutions for public utility markets.
Original sourcesSlow Boring
05 / main
Polls show voters favor free markets over capitalism
The takeaway: Public opinion polls show stronger support for free markets than capitalism, particularly among younger Democrats. Voters favor open competition but reject corporate rent-seeking and policy-imposed entry barriers like strict licensing rules.
Concrete details
- Echelon Insights polling shows free market terminology consistently outperforming capitalism across key voter demographics.
- State occupational licensing forces barbers to complete up to 2,100 training hours, restricting market entry.
Why it matters for this reader: Understanding voter perceptions of market terms clarifies political feasibility for advancing supply-side economic policy reforms.
Original sourcesSlow Boring
Action items
- Review wealth tax proposals against empirical wealth-to-GDP data to evaluate potential government revenue gains.
- Examine local housing zoning rules to assess how supply restrictions impact regional housing affordability and rent levels.
See every issue behind this brief
The Case Against Homeownership
- The case against homeownershipSlow Boring · Included
Billionaire Wealth and Wealth Taxes
- Against Oligarchy, Part II: Wealth TaxesPaul Krugman · Included
Gabriel Zucman on Wealth Concentration
- Talking Again With Gabriel ZucmanPaul Krugman · Included
National home price decline
- One block, two fightsSlow Boring · Read, not included
US military defeat in
- The Putinization of the American MilitaryPaul Krugman · Read, not included
Politically Unpopular Electricity Price Policy
- A great idea that everyone hatesSlow Boring · Included
Midterm elections preview
- The midterms, 100 days outSlow Boring · Read, not included
US war on Iran
- Quagmire of the VanitiesPaul Krugman · Read, not included
Polling 'Free Markets' vs 'Capitalism'
- Why free markets beat capitalismSlow Boring · Included
Troy Jackson political analysis
- Great speeches need good ideasSlow Boring · Read, not included
Misinformation and political discourse
- Reality is a Communist PlotPaul Krugman · Read, not included
US foreign policy and
- How Trump made America less popular than ChinaSlow Boring · Read, not included
European wildfires and climate
- The Fire This TimePaul Krugman · Read, not included
AI image recognition capabilities
- When the Chips Are DownPaul Krugman · Read, not included
Slow Boring discussion post
- Thursday discussion postSlow Boring · Read, not included
- Tuesday discussion postSlow Boring · Read, not included
- Saturday discussion postSlow Boring · Read, not included
Historical accuracy in cinema
- Historical accuracy is a surprisingly modern ideaSlow Boring · Read, not included
Slow Boring mailbag
- Sunday Thread + MailbagSlow Boring · Read, not included
Christopher Nolan The Odyssey
- Thank you, Christopher NolanSlow Boring · Read, not included
The useful difference
The difference that matters
Slow Boring ranges across pragmatic policy design and coalition politics. Paul Krugman starts more directly from macroeconomics, trade, industrial policy, and the economic logic behind political claims.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
What each is best for
Slow Boring
Slow Boring contributes practical policy arguments that take implementation, coalitions, markets, and state capacity seriously.[1][2][3]
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman contributes an economist's reading of trade, industry, macroeconomic policy, and the misleading slogans surrounding them.[4][5][6]
When it’s worth reading both
The pair earns a place when sound economics may be difficult politics—or a feasible proposal has weak economic logic. Scottie can preserve that tension and the evidence each writer uses.[1][2][3][4][5][6]