“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
AI Summary.Second-quarter real GDP growth was revised up 0.7 percentage points to +2.2% at an annual rate, reflecting upward revisions to consumption (to +3.8%) and investment (to +4.6%). Private fixed investment was revised up to +9.0%, driven by data center spending in nonresidential structures.
Jan Hatzius, David Mericle, Alec Phillips, Ronnie Walker, et al.Goldman Sachs
Date Posted:
GS forecasts that the FOMC will not hike in October, will do one 25bp hike in December and “ultimately conclude that additional rate hikes are unnecessary.”
What drove the upward revision to second-quarter GDP growth?
Core argument: U.S. real GDP growth in Q2 was revised up 0.7pp to +2.2% quarter-over-quarter annualized, led by upward revisions to consumption (+0.4pp to +3.8%) and investment (+1.9pp to +4.6%).
Real GDP was revised up by 0.7pp to +2.2% in Q2 (quarter-over-quarter annualized), largely reflecting upward revisions to consumption (+0.4pp to +3.8%) and investment (+1.9pp to +4.6%) growth. The strength in consumer spending in Q2 likely continued to reflect the boost to consumer cashflow from larger-than-usual tax refunds, but we continue to expect consumer spending growth to slow somewhat in 2026Q4 as the fiscal support fades and the headwind from higher energy prices remains. Stronger investment growth reflected an upward revision to private fixed investment (+0.5pp to +9.0%), driven by data center investment in the nonresidential structures category (+1.9pp to +0.1%), and an upward revision to the contribution from inventories (+0.2pp to -0.5pp).
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
U.S. real GDP growth in Q2 was revised up 0.7pp to +2.2% quarter-over-quarter annualized, led by upward revisions to consumption (+0.4pp to +3.8%) and investment (+1.9pp to +4.6%).
Private fixed investment growth in Q2 was revised up 0.5pp to +9.0%, driven by data center investment in nonresidential structures, revised up 1.9pp to +0.1%, alongside a +0.2pp revision to the inventory contribution, to -0.5pp.
Q2 consumer spending strength likely reflected the cashflow boost from larger-than-usual tax refunds, with spending growth expected to slow somewhat in 2026Q4 as fiscal support fades and higher energy prices remain a headwind.
Related Articles:
The Fed Finally Gets It— Federal Reserve officials' assessed risks to their employment and price stability mandates had tended to move together rather than inversely, suggesting common forces were driving both. That pattern has now shifted, with officials more optimistic on growth and employment and less concerned about downside risks than before the pandemic.
The Diesel Shock Is a Core Inflation Shock— The US Gulf Coast diesel crack spread cleared $100 per barrel for the first time on record, against a normal range of $15 to $30. Because diesel is an intermediate input embedded in the delivered cost of nearly every physical good, the author argues the increase migrates with a lag into core goods and services inflation.
Warsh’s Fed Soars Like a Hawk Into a Hiking Cycle— The Federal Reserve described its rate increase as having "removed a dose of accommodation" and as a start to showing it is serious, implying the policy rate remains accommodative and further increases are coming. Market-implied expectations have shifted to price in three additional hikes before the tightening cycle ends.
AI Summary.Interest rates remain low relative to reasonable expectations of inflation and growth, with incomes and spending rising about 7% a year in dollar terms. Absent idle workers, machines, and materials, higher rates can help shift resources toward business equipment and nonresidential construction by discouraging consumer spending and housing or attracting foreign goods and services today.
Matt KleinThe Overshoot
Date Posted:
Klein argues that, far from indicating a panic-driven bond sell-off, higher bond yields are a necessary concomitant of persistent 7% growth in nominal income, which in turn reflects continued high inflation and robust real spending.
Do higher interest rates help shift resources toward business investment?
Core argument: Incomes and spending are rising about 7% a year in dollar terms, which the author argues leaves interest rates low relative to reasonable expectations of inflation and growth.
Rates are still low relative to reasonable expectations of inflation and growth. Incomes and spending are currently rising about 7% a year in dollar terms. But unless there are loads of unused workers, machines, and raw materials just lying around, the only way to spend relatively more on essential machinery, equipment, and nonresidential construction is if someone spends relatively less on consumer goods, services, and housing. Higher interest rates can help to the extent that they can discourage those lower-priority activities and/or encourage people in the rest of the world to accept promises of goods and services in the future in exchange for actual goods and services today. In this context, the current level of interest rates looks downright benign.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Incomes and spending are rising about 7% a year in dollar terms, which the author argues leaves interest rates low relative to reasonable expectations of inflation and growth.
Absent idle workers, machines, and raw materials, spending relatively more on machinery, equipment, and nonresidential construction requires spending relatively less on consumer goods, services, and housing, according to the author.
Higher interest rates can aid that shift by discouraging lower-priority activities and encouraging people abroad to accept promises of future goods and services in exchange for actual goods and services today, leaving current rates benign in the author's view.
Related Articles:
AI, Productivity, and Rates: Part 2— Inflation-protected U.S. Treasury yields rose from about 3.5% in early 1997 to about 4.5% by 2000, compared with roughly 2.4% on the 10-year and 3% on the 30-year today. The author argues that this 1990s experience helps calibrate expectations if new software technologies produce a comparable acceleration in productivity growth.
Don’t Draw The Wrong Conclusion From Treasury Yields— Ten-year real yields equal the average expected overnight rate over the next decade plus a term premium, and fiscal credibility or debt sustainability concerns would show up as a higher term premium. With the term premium and inflation expectations contained, the increase in bond yields reflects higher expected long-term overnight rates.
America’s Risky Debt: What Markets See That Policymakers Don’t— Two market-based measures suggest the safety premium investors pay to hold US Treasuries has compressed toward zero and at times reversed: the spread between top-rated corporate bonds and Treasuries after stripping out default risk, and the gap between currency-hedged foreign G10 government yields and Treasury yields at the same maturity, where longer-maturity comparisons now favor foreign bonds.
AI Summary.Japan's 10-year government bond yield reached 3%, its highest since 1996, after years near zero. The yield was half that level a year earlier, and the speed of the shift is reverberating through Japan's economy and global financial markets.
John ChengBloomberg
Date Posted:
Japan’s 10-year government bond yield rose 6bp to hit 3% for the first time since 1996.
Are Japanese long-term bond yields rising sharply after years near zero?
Core argument: Japan's 10-year government bond yield rose as much as six basis points to touch 3%, its highest level since 1996 and the first time it has reached that level this century.
Japan’s 10-year government bond yield touched 3% for the first time this century, an important milestone for a debt market that is returning to normality after benchmark borrowing costs languished near zero for years. The yield rose as much as six basis points to 3% on Tuesday, the highest since 1996. It was half this level around this time last year, underscoring the speed of the change, which is reverberating through Japan’s economy and global financial markets.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Japan's 10-year government bond yield rose as much as six basis points to touch 3%, its highest level since 1996 and the first time it has reached that level this century.
Japan's 10-year government bond yield stood at half its current level a year earlier, underscoring the speed of the shift in the country's benchmark borrowing costs.
Japan's debt market is returning to normality after benchmark borrowing costs languished near zero for years, with the move reverberating through Japan's economy and global financial markets.
Related Articles:
Where is the Global Debt Crisis Most Acute?— A proxy for strain at the long end of government bond markets — the gap between the 10-year yield expected in 10 years' time and today's 10-year yield, scored against its own history — shows Japan as an outlier among the G10 economies.
Global Debt Report 2026— Gross central government borrowing across OECD countries rose 7% to a record $17tn, about 23% of GDP, and is projected to reach roughly $18tn, or 24% of GDP. The United States and Japan account for close to 80% of the area's refinancing requirements, with the US share rising from 57% to 70%.
The Carry Trade That Can’t Be Unwound— Japan's consolidated public sector has liabilities of 255% of GDP, with asset purchases having shortened their duration and bank reserves at the Bank of Japan — floating-rate liabilities — worth 75.5% of GDP, down from 90.7%. Its largely unhedged 56%-of-GDP position in foreign securities and 50%-of-GDP equity holdings would take losses if the yen appreciates and real rates climb.
AI Summary.Inflation-protected U.S. Treasury yields rose from about 3.5% in early 1997 to about 4.5% by 2000, compared with roughly 2.4% on the 10-year and 3% on the 30-year today. The author argues that this 1990s experience helps calibrate expectations if new software technologies produce a comparable acceleration in productivity growth.
Matt KleinThe Overshoot
Date Posted:
Klein compares measures of real rates from the 1990s productivity boom to today’s real rates, using TIPS, as well as “synthetic TIPS” derived by subtracting inflation expectations from nominal rates. Current real rates are very low by comparison.
Would faster productivity growth from new software technologies push real yields higher?
Core argument: Real yields on TIPS were roughly 3.5% when the securities were introduced at the start of 1997 and rose gradually to about 4.5% by the peak of the bubble in 2000.
Real yields on actual TIPS were ~3.5% when they first arrived at the beginning of 1997, and then rose gradually to ~4.5% by the peak of the bubble in 2000. Yields on “synthetic” TIPS derived by removing estimates of inflation expectations from nominal yields were also around 3.5% in early 1997 and 4.5% in the first half of 2000, though they were more volatile in between. The yield on the benchmark 10y TIPS is currently 2.4% while the yield on the 30y TIPS is around 3%. Knowing what actually happened in the 1990s is helpful for calibrating expectations about what could happen in the next decade, if new software technologies lead to a comparable acceleration in productivity growth.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Real yields on TIPS were roughly 3.5% when the securities were introduced at the start of 1997 and rose gradually to about 4.5% by the peak of the bubble in 2000.
"Synthetic" TIPS yields, derived by stripping estimates of inflation expectations out of nominal yields, also stood near 3.5% in early 1997 and 4.5% in the first half of 2000, with more volatility in between.
The benchmark 10-year TIPS yields 2.4% and the 30-year TIPS around 3%, while the 1990s experience offers a guide for calibrating expectations if new software technologies deliver a comparable acceleration in productivity growth.
Related Articles:
AI, Productivity, and Rates: Part I— A San Francisco Federal Reserve model estimates that the growth contribution from rising resource utilization in recent quarters has been larger than in almost any comparable five-quarter stretch since 1947 outside recoveries from downturns. That measure is based on a modified version of the average worker's weekly hours rather than unemployment or capacity utilization.
AI and Productivity— The recent pickup in US labor productivity appears driven by higher utilization of existing capital—running factories, server racks, and hotel rooms harder—rather than by firm-level efficiency gains from AI. Adoption remains too thin and the cross-sectional evidence too weak to conclude that AI-driven productivity gains are already widespread.
Have We Entered an Era of High Productivity Growth?— Labor productivity has grown solidly while the San Francisco Federal Reserve's total factor productivity index, which adjusts for the equipment and technology workers use, has grown modestly, suggesting gains so far reflect better tools rather than broader advances. A regime-switching model puts the probability of a high-productivity regime at 57% using labor productivity and 21% using total factor productivity.
AI Summary.Tariff refunds are boosting US corporate earnings and economic growth, with the Atlanta Federal Reserve's GDPNow tracker pointing to 4.3% growth this quarter, of which roughly 0.2 percentage points is estimated to come from tariff refunds.
Torsten SløkApollo
Date Posted:
Net tariff receipts turned negative in May as refunds outpaced custom duties. The Atlanta Fed projects GDP growth of 4.3% at an annual rate in Q3, of which Sløk estimates ~.2pp will be driven by tariff refunds.
Are tariff refunds adding to corporate earnings and GDP growth?
Core argument: The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow points to 4.3% US growth this quarter, of which roughly 0.2 percentage points are estimated to come from tariff refunds.
The tailwinds behind the US economy are not just AI spending, the industrial renaissance and the One Big Beautiful Bill. Tariff refunds have now joined the list. Not only are tariff refunds boosting corporate earnings, they are also boosting GDP growth. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow currently points to 4.3% growth this quarter, of which we estimate roughly 0.2 percentage points come from tariff refunds. The bottom line is that the US economy continues to be supported by a growing set of tailwinds. Rates will stay higher for longer.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow points to 4.3% US growth this quarter, of which roughly 0.2 percentage points are estimated to come from tariff refunds.
Tariff refunds are boosting both corporate earnings and GDP growth, joining AI spending, the industrial renaissance and the One Big Beautiful Bill as tailwinds behind the US economy.
With the US economy supported by a growing set of tailwinds, rates are expected to stay higher for longer.
Related Articles:
The State of U.S. Tariffs July 24, 2026— The average statutory US tariff rate stands at 11.1% and, under current law including scheduled increases, is projected to reach 11.8% by year-end. The authors estimate current-law tariffs will raise consumer prices by about 0.7% and generate roughly $1.9tn over ten years, with revenue somewhat lower after accounting for tariffs' negative effect on economic output.
The AI Capex Boom Is Building Twice as Fast as the Housing Boom— Data-center capital spending is projected to rise from 1.4% of GDP to 3.1% within two years, about 0.85 percentage points a year, roughly twice the pace of the housing boom's fastest stretch (0.5 points a year) and far above telecom fiber's (about 0.15). In level, the buildout exceeds twice the fiber peak but remains under half the housing peak.
The AI Investment Race— Technology-driven investment booms have historically ended in sharp corrections with wider economic fallout, and the current artificial intelligence build-out is on track to outgrow every previous episode within three years measured from its pre-boom trough. The expansion is increasingly funded by borrowing through bonds, special purpose vehicles and non-bank lenders, alongside circular financing arrangements that create interconnectedness among firms.
AI Summary.Measured total factor productivity growth is estimated to come almost entirely from higher input utilisation rather than underlying efficiency gains, based on a method that infers unobserved capital and labour utilisation from movements in hours per worker. On this evidence, recent productivity gains reflect "working harder" rather than "working smarter.
Shane Boyle, John Fernald and Huiyu LiCenter For Economic and Policy Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
US labor productivity has accelerated, with output per hour growing at a mean annual rate of 2.5% btw 2023–2026Q1, ~1pp above its 2005–2019 pace. The gains have largely been driven by higher input utilisation, which is ‘inherently temporary.”
Does higher input utilisation explain recent measured productivity growth?
Core argument: Since the beginning of 2024, utilisation growth accounts for essentially all measured total factor productivity growth, suggesting the measured productivity gains derive from "working harder" rather than "smarter".
Input utilisation is not observed directly for the entire economy; it must be inferred. Consider a firm that wants to meet strong demand but has a given capital stock, workforce, and technology. It can ask its existing workers to work longer (which we observe). It can also run its capital longer. Each margin is costly, for example, overtime pay, so firms typically use all of them at once. The observed margin serves as a proxy for the unobserved ones. The method infers changes in industry utilisation from observed movements in hours per worker, scaled by an estimated pass-through of those movements into labour productivity. Industry estimates are aggregated using Domar weights, which reflect each industry’s importance. The stacked bars in Figure 2 show measured TFP growth split into [Fernald's] measure of utilisation growth in light grey and utilisation-adjusted TFP growth in dark grey. In 2023, utilisation growth was a drag on measured TFP growth, and utilisation-adjusted TFP growth soared. Since the beginning of 2024, however, utilisation accounts for essentially all TFP growth. For now, the measured productivity gains appear to derive from “working harder” rather than “smarter.”
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Since the beginning of 2024, utilisation growth accounts for essentially all measured total factor productivity growth, suggesting the measured productivity gains derive from "working harder" rather than "smarter".
In 2023, utilisation growth was a drag on measured TFP growth while utilisation-adjusted TFP growth soared, according to Fernald's decomposition of measured TFP.
Economy-wide input utilisation is not observed directly and is inferred from movements in hours per worker, scaled by an estimated pass-through into labour productivity, with industry estimates aggregated using Domar weights.
Related Articles:
Productivity During and Since the Pandemic— Total factor productivity growth since early 2021 has run only slightly above its 2010–19 average, suggesting the 2020 productivity surge reflected cyclical dynamics layered on a continuation of the slow pre-pandemic trend. Productivity has since grown somewhat faster than the authors' analysis predicted, but remains well below the 1995–2004 pace.
The Impact of AI on the U.S. Labor Market— Using observed AI usage data across 321 U.S. occupations, the authors estimate that highly exposed occupations saw a 6.7% decline in real wage growth with no detectable employment effects. The estimated declines are concentrated among the lowest earners, with service workers down 24.3% and the bottom wage quartile down 10.7%, while top earners show no significant effect.
Why Wages And Productivity Look Set To Diverge Further— In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with productivity pulling ahead. US labor productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than 5x its 1947 level while real hourly compensation is only about 3x, and median wage growth lags even further behind.
AI Summary.In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with productivity pulling ahead. US labor productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than 5x its 1947 level while real hourly compensation is only about 3x, and median wage growth lags even further behind.
Joel SussFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
In advanced economies, increases in labor productivity growth have decoupled from real wage growth, especially post-1980.
Are wages falling further behind productivity growth in advanced economies?
Core argument: US labour productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than five times its 1947 level, while real hourly compensation is only about three times greater.
In the US, Europe and Japan, pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth, with the latter having pulled ahead. US Labour productivity — measured as real GDP per hour worked — is now more than five times greater than in 1947, whereas real hourly compensation is only about three times greater. Median wage growth has lagged even further behind productivity growth, with inequality pushing the average wage higher than the median. (The figures above show average rather than median wages; plotting median wages would show an even greater divergence.)
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
US labour productivity, measured as real GDP per hour worked, is more than five times its 1947 level, while real hourly compensation is only about three times greater.
Pay growth has decoupled from productivity growth in the US, Europe and Japan, with productivity pulling ahead in all three.
Median wage growth has lagged productivity growth by even more than average wage growth, as inequality pushes the average wage above the median.
Related Articles:
The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker Pay— Labor's share of gross domestic income fell to 51%, the lowest since records began in 1947, while profits' share rose to 12.1%, the highest since 1950. Inflation-adjusted hourly wages are up 3% since the end of 2019, compared with a 50% rise in profits.
AI and Productivity— The recent pickup in US labor productivity appears driven by higher utilization of existing capital—running factories, server racks, and hotel rooms harder—rather than by firm-level efficiency gains from AI. Adoption remains too thin and the cross-sectional evidence too weak to conclude that AI-driven productivity gains are already widespread.
Understanding Trends in Worker Pay over the Past 50 Years— Productivity growth has been unequal across industries, across firms within industries, and across workers within firms, slowing growth in both the productivity and the pay of the median worker. The authors argue that working- and middle-class men earlier received "breadwinner rents"—pay above their marginal value to employers—and then endured slow wage growth as women's workforce participation rose.
AI Summary.About 73m US households hold retirement accounts, mostly defined-contribution plans whose balances have risen $6.7tn, and 45m households account for nearly $15tn in annual outlays, close to 3x Germany's economy and 70% of China's GDP. This group's spending has sustained faster growth than comparably wealthy economies.
Jason ThomasCarlyle
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Citing the spending of the top 45mm US households, Jason Thomas argues that US economic growth could be characterized less as ‘k-shaped’ than “travelling at two speeds, one roughly the same rate as Europe’s and another that’s racing far ahead.”
Does retirement wealth explain why US spending outpaces peer economies?
Core argument: Balances in US defined-contribution retirement plans have risen by $6.7tn since the start of 2019, a 12.7% annually compounded gain, with roughly 73 million US households holding retirement accounts.
Roughly 73 million US households have retirement accounts (primarily defined-contribution plans like 401ks) that consist primarily of claims on businesses whose revenue growth and market values provide another hedge against inflation. Balances in defined contribution plans have increased by $6.7 trillion (+12.7%, annually compounded) since the start of 2019. US personal savings rates have fallen sharply over the past year (from 5.5% in April 2025 to 3% in May 2026) but that seems entirely rational. If your retirement balance is far above where you expected it to be, why not spend a bit more of your current income than previously intended? If we net across these overlapping cohorts and exclude recent first-time home purchases, we’re left with 45 million households that combine to account for nearly $15 trillion in annual outlays. That’s an extraordinary sum, equal to nearly 3x the size of the entire German economy and 70% of the GDP of China. And this third of the population has not only been insulated from the inflation shock but also exhibits the propensity to spend out of wealth and income to an extent that’s sustained a far higher rate of GDP growth than observed in economies with comparable living standards.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Balances in US defined-contribution retirement plans have risen by $6.7tn since the start of 2019, a 12.7% annually compounded gain, with roughly 73 million US households holding retirement accounts.
Netting overlapping cohorts and excluding recent first-time home purchases leaves 45 million US households accounting for nearly $15tn in annual outlays, equal to nearly 3x the German economy and 70% of China's GDP.
The US personal savings rate fell from 5.5% in April 2025 to 3% in May 2026, a decline the article argues is rational when retirement balances sit far above expectations.
Related Articles:
K-Shaped Economy?— Available spending data does not support the narrative of a bifurcated "K-shaped" consumer economy: surveys show households earning under $50,000 reported spending growth of 5%, versus 4.6% for those earning over $100,000. Government data show the top income decile's share of aggregate spending at 22.8%, down from 23.4% a year earlier.
The K-Shaped Economy’s Defining Statistic Has Some Problems— The widely cited estimate that the top 10% of US earners account for 45% of consumer spending comes from a method combining Federal Reserve survey and financial-accounts data. Its author says he is more confident in the trajectory—a significant, consistent rise in the top 10% and 20% shares over 30–35 years—than the level.
The Two Europes— The International Monetary Fund projects Eastern European economies will close much of the gap with US per capita GDP — Poland from 34% to 67%, Romania 27% to 60%, Lithuania 29% to 69% — while Western Europe slips, with France falling from 86% to 71% and Italy from 93% to 68%.
