You're reading a newsletter from The Indicator from Planet Money. Once a week, we curate our favorite stories and insights on business, finance, economics and why they matter. Subscribe here to get it in your inbox every Friday.
"When's the last time you shorted a baby." That's how the trailer starts for the video game Space Warlord Baby Trading Simulator. This game feels just like a Planet Money episode wrapped in a weird little box. And it plays on the concept of 'information advantage.' That's something ex-Congressman George Santos used to make money off the State of the Union, for which he just received a lifetime ban on Kalshi. It's about making money on a human outcome using the advantage of beautiful, all-knowing information. This game was posted in NPR's #gaming Slack channel and got people talking about how silly it was.
Alright, SO. The game is … you pick an alien baby, you buy stocks in its simulated life and then you can buy, sell, short, and cash out on what happens. Perhaps the baby commits war crimes or falls in love (in that order?). Perhaps it acquires a corporation. Who knows what a baby will do these days! It's a nice little lesson in how the market reacts to live events. I got to play it … it's fast-paced, it's weird, it's just fun.
Coming up, how changing what's eligible for SNAP recipients can actually affect consumption habits, who takes care of the Wall Street "Charging Bull," and why cocoa prices are so darn fickle.
News We're Watching
1. Banning soda from food stamp eligibility actually DOES reduce consumption? - University of Chicago
What To Know: After President Trump entered office, his administration encouraged states to cut sugary drinks like soda from SNAP eligibility as part of its "Make American Healthy Again" initiative. So far, 23 states have implemented the restriction. A working paper out of the University of Chicago last week expressed some skepticism that restrictions would affect consumption, given "the majority of recipients spend more on groceries than their SNAP allotment." So … people could theoretically just switch to paying for sugary drinks with NON-SNAP funds, right? WRONG! Purchases of the excluded drinks went down 12.4% in the first half of this year. "A 12.4% decrease is larger than most researchers had predicted, and indeed larger than I had predicted," Hunt Allcott, co-author of the study, told CBS News.
So is this a win?: Yes and no. If the goal was making people healthier, the numbers aren't overwhelmingly promising. The working paper found that if all sugary drinks were excluded, the average adult SNAP recipient would lose a total of 0.27 pounds with a drop in diabetes risk of 2.5% over 10 years.
The other problem here … in states where there was only a partial ban on sugary drinks, recipients just bought whatever else was available. They diverted up to 39% of excluded purchases to things to NON-excluded items like energy drinks and fruit juices.
That said, it's now clear that changing what's eligible via SNAP does affect consumption. Sometimes it's just good to know a lever works.
2. Who owns the charging bull near Wall Street? - The City Reporter
What to know: You don't have to strain much to understand the symbolism behind the "Charging Bull" statue. Located near Wall Street in Manhattan, it is frequently surrounded by tourists. But the nonprofit news org The City Reporter raised a good point last week: Who actually owns it? Their takeaway: WHO KNOWS? The statue's creators sold it to British billionaire Joe Lewis around 2004. But a spokesman for Lewis' investment firm clarified that the family owns the original cast and rights to reproduce the bull. They don't own the bull itself.
Why it matters: It's unclear who owns the statue, and yet it still gets maintained! Without any obligation, the Downtown Alliance has PAID to remove graffiti from the statue. The Downtown Alliance is a "district" funded by surrounding property owners. Why is this happening? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Beautification? A clean bull is a positive externality for someone who wants to take a photograph with it. That photographer isn't paying for it... though their foot traffic MAY benefit the surrounding businesses. So I guess it's worth it for the Downtown Alliance to pony up and pay for a clean bull.
Today's Indicator
How Gen-Z looks at sports betting differently
If you haven't listened: It's been eight years since the federal ban on sports betting was lifted, and boy has it returned with a vengeance. Next time you walk in a major city or go to a sporting event, just look around. Do you notice the BetMGM signs? FanDuel? They are EVERYWHERE.
Earlier this year, we talked in the newsletter about more than HALF of men having an active account in an online sportsbook. Well, a new survey came out finding that in the past year more than half of Gen Z respondents have put money intended for investing in sports gambling. The line between gambling and investing is very blurry to younger generations who are inundated with favorable sports gambling marketing materials.
And it's easy to imagine why people are drawn to it. There are people like Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy snagging headlines for multi-million dollar payouts.
Check out the episode as we look at what ubiquitous gambling advertising has meant for Gen Z.
Listen to the full episode
If you have listened: then you know Colorado became a battleground over sports betting as lawmakers sought to limit some of the addictive qualities of the apps. WELL. One thing that didn't make it into the episode … HOW the gambling lobby tried to defend itself.
As Matt Ball, the Democratic state senator in Colorado, was trying to pass his legislation on sports betting, he said he thinks that the gambling lobby used pop-up notifications or emails to tell constituents: "Lawmakers are trying to take your bets. Click here to save your ability to bet," Matt told Ricky.
"And you click on that, and it generates an email, and it sends it to your state legislator. But the really clever thing that the industry did in our case was, and I'm not sure if they used AI, I think they probably did, but they actually changed what that email said each time," Matt said. "They did just an amazing job of disguising all of these one-click emails as legitimate from a constituent."
Rest of the Week
This researcher says ICE is creating an 'economies of fear'
Explaining the Treasury's bond buyback strategy
Going behind the scenes on a retail shelf-test
Listener Mailbag
Listener Rudy Moser sent in a question from Omaha, Neb.
QUESTION: What is going on with chocolate chips?? The most eye-popping part of my grocery trip every week is walking by the chocolate chip display.
$7.98 for Ghirardelli!!!
$5.49 for Toll House!!
$3.99 for store brand!
Clear winner (not shown): Costco's Kirkland brand $1.99 (12 oz equivalent for $11.99 4.5 lb bag) I might be swapping chocolate chip cookies for oatmeal raisin (not that raisins are cheap either!)
ANSWER: Rudy, you're right. Cocoa is having a whirlwind economic adventure. In 2025, prices hit a peak due to lower exports in both Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire for political and climate-related reasons. Then the price DROPPED by more than 44% earlier this year due to good weather, new plantations and just overall MORE cocoa supply. And then it rose AGAIN.
Wells Fargo's David Branch told CNN he could see relief on cocoa pricing by Halloween at the earliest, but he's not super confident. In the meantime, Côte d'Ivoire estimates its cocoa shipments will be down 18% for this upcoming season. Ghana's crop is expected to fall by more than 30% with continued climate concerns.
Now you might ask: why the variation in pricing from brand to brand? One reason could be that different brands are actually using more real cocoa. Many are adjusting their recipes due to structural concerns about cocoa costs. Makes sense!
Thanks for the question, Rudy!
If you have an economics question, send it our way at [email protected]!
In Our Spare Time
Temporary Co-Host Ricky Mulvey went to see the band Goose (NOT Geese)
On Tuesday, I saw the band Goose at Red Rocks, one of my favorite live acts right now. The band is jam meets alternative rock. My buddy found $40 tickets for their Tuesday show. How could I say no?
Goose played five shows over six days. The night I saw them, parts of the first set seemed a little tired, understandably so. But other parts absolutely ripped, songs like "Royal" and "Big Modern!"
It was my eighth time seeing some version of Goose. These shows are bookmarks for my time in Colorado now — when I just got a job, moved into a new place, or met new friends.
I grew up as a second-generation Deadhead (on my father's side). So this music is a connection point with my family. My brother lives in Australia. I know he'll listen to the soundboards, and we'll get a chance to talk about it.
Enjoying This Newsletter?
Send to a friend! They can sign up here.
LOOKING FOR MORE GREAT CONTENT?
Check out all of our newsletter offerings — including Music, Politics, Health and more!
