So, you've probably heard about that viral research note predicting an AI-driven global economic crisis by 2028. It made quite a splash. But now, a bunch of Wall Street economists are essentially raising their hands and saying, "Wait, hold on—that's not how any of this works."

The pushback against Citrini Research's "The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis" is getting louder. The core argument from the critics is refreshingly simple, almost old-school: when productivity goes up, the economy tends to grow. It doesn't usually just implode. And some are worried that investors might be getting swept up in a really good story rather than what the numbers are actually saying.

The Basic Economics Lesson: Production Pays People

Let's start with the macro counterpunch. Gerard MacDonell, founder of Front Harbor Macro Research, calls the Citrini piece an "allegorical essay" and wonders how many people circulating it actually read the whole thing. His main critique boils down to a foundational economic idea you might remember from class: production generates income.

Think about it. If AI makes companies more productive and profitable, that money doesn't just vanish. It goes to someone—workers, shareholders, the owners of capital—and then those people spend it or invest it. "Say's Law invokes the simple point that production generates income and that this income must accrue to someone, who is likely to spend it," MacDonell said.

He points out that history is full of technological leaps that raised real incomes and expanded what the economy could do, even if the benefits weren't always evenly shared. The idea that getting better at making stuff automatically destroys demand for stuff? That, he suggests, pretty much goes against centuries of economic experience. He also notes the current U.S. economy is supply-constrained, not drowning in excess savings, and the Fed has room to maneuver. In that setting, a productivity jolt is more likely to be a gift than a curse.

Why a Scary Story Sells So Well

Then there's the narrative angle. London-based strategist Joachim Klement puts it bluntly: bearish stories are good business. "Investment gurus who sell bearish newsletters make more money selling their newsletters and books than people who sell useful information," he notes.

He cites research showing investors sometimes pay more for a compelling economic story than for a raw forecast. Pessimistic tales can be especially valuable to certain investors. "Investors value narratives more than the actual recession forecast," Klement wrote. The takeaway? A dramatic allegory about a 2028 debt-deflation spiral can travel through a jittery market a lot faster than a boring spreadsheet. The story itself has power.

What's Actually Happening in the Job Market?

Okay, but what does the data say? Peter Williams, an analyst at 22V Research, questions whether the current numbers support a doom spiral narrative. He suggests the sell-off triggered by the Citrini report "dramatically catalyzed on existing and building AI-related fears"—negative scenarios gain traction when markets feel fragile.

But look at the labor market, he says. "There is certainly no sign of a recent or building collapse in hiring intentions." White-collar job postings have stabilized after a long weak patch. Mentions of layoffs on earnings calls are way below their early 2023 peaks. Job openings in sectors exposed to AI have been bouncing around similar levels for about a year. The critics' point is straightforward: if AI were already triggering a self-reinforcing employment disaster, you'd expect the forward-looking indicators to look much, much worse.

The Augmentation, Not Extinction, View

Veteran strategist Ed Yardeni has also weighed in against the apocalyptic framing. "We continue to believe that AI is augmenting workers' productivity rather than making them extinct," he wrote recently.

He finds the shift in sentiment around AI striking: "The good news is that bullish sentiment must be dropping rapidly, as the AI story has morphed from a Roaring 2020s productivity booster to an existential threat to our way of life." Yardeni is sticking to his long-term call that the S&P 500 (SPY) could hit 10,000 by 2030. His view is that AI will cut costs, boost output, and open up new opportunities—just like past tech revolutions. For him, the bigger risk isn't collapse; it's the market simply getting the price of disruption or the size of the productivity gains wrong.

What's Really at Stake Here

All this pushback highlights the real dividing line in the debate. Is AI about to shrink the whole economic pie by wiping out labor income faster than demand can adapt? Or will it make the pie bigger by making us all more productive, even if the slices get cut differently?

History has a pretty strong track record of siding with the "bigger pie" team when it comes to technological change. And as several of these economists argue, the immediate danger might not be artificial intelligence itself. It might be the stories we tell ourselves about it, and how much we're willing to pay for a really gripping tale of doom.