“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“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
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…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
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…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
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.The author argues that a slowdown in artificial-intelligence capital spending would remove a stimulus that has been masking weakness, colliding with overcapacity, falling prices, refinancing needs and weaker labor income. On this view the main risk is deflationary, transmitting through investment, employment, consumption, credit, housing and asset prices at once.
Paul KedroskyApplied Complexity
Date Posted:
Kedrosky argues that the “inevitable transition” from the current inflationary AI-buildout regime to a new regime in which AI-driven productivity gains exert deflationary pressure is “where the real macro risk lies.”
Would an AI spending slowdown create deflationary rather than inflationary risk?
Core argument: The author argues the dangerous phase arrives when the AI capex boom slows, removing stimulus just as overcapacity, falling prices, refinancing needs and weaker labor income hit together, with a refinancing wall waiting in 2028.
If AI investment has been masking underlying weakness, a slowdown removes the stimulus just as overcapacity, falling prices, refinancing needs and weaker labor income hit together. A refinancing wall sits waiting in 2028. Failure is over-determined. This moment sits at the intersection of the four forces that have produced the most consequential boom-bust cycles in Western economic history: loose credit, government policy, technology, and real estate. There are, as a result, myriad catalysts, each with a low probability of happening, but which collectively guarantee collapse. That is why the principal risk is deflationary rather than inflationary. An AI bust could transmit through capex, employment, consumption, credit, housing, and asset prices simultaneously.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The author argues the dangerous phase arrives when the AI capex boom slows, removing stimulus just as overcapacity, falling prices, refinancing needs and weaker labor income hit together, with a refinancing wall waiting in 2028.
The principal risk from an AI bust is deflationary rather than inflationary, according to the author, because it could transmit simultaneously through capex, employment, consumption, credit, housing, and asset prices.
The author places this moment at the intersection of loose credit, government policy, technology, and real estate — the four forces behind the most consequential boom-bust cycles in Western economic history — and sees a plausible decade of Japan-style balance recession with fiscal stimulus constrained by massive deficits.
Related Articles:
Financing the AI Buildout— The authors estimate roughly 57 gigawatts of operating US data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of about 509 gigawatts, which is not a completion forecast since projects may be delayed, scaled back, or abandoned. Their central scenario has 182.8 gigawatts of added capacity becoming operational through 2032, 117.2 gigawatts completed later, and 226.9 gigawatts never completed.
A Catalyst For The AI Bubble Break— Historically, controlling for valuations, a 1% rise in the share of the market represented by initial public offerings has been associated with roughly a 4% decline in prices. With large artificial-intelligence company listings expected and share issuance exceeding buybacks, equity supply could shift from shrinking about 1% a year to growing near 5%, implying returns roughly 20% below average.
AI Set to be Largest CapEx Cycle Ever … and Soon Majority Externally Financed— Hyperscaler and data-center investment is tracking toward $1.5tn annually by 2030, which in real terms would exceed the 2005-06 housing boom, the 1990s fiber peak, and the 1882 railroad peak combined. External debt and equity are projected to fund close to 90% of the buildout, making it dependent on credit markets.
AI Summary.China faces three options as external demand weakens: shift a larger share of national income to households so consumption absorbs more output, keep relying on investment despite weak returns, or let production and growth slow. The first requires substantial changes in income distribution and saving incentives; the second risks more debt and excess capacity; the third implies higher unemployment.
Michael PettisChina Financial Markets
Date Posted:
“Beijing cannot choose whether China will adjust; one way or another, it will.” Pettis warns Zhongnanhai against postponing rebalancing with another round of debt-financed investment “despite increasingly weak returns.”
What choices does China face as external demand weakens?
Core argument: China faces three options: shift a larger share of national income to households so consumption absorbs more output, keep relying on investment despite weak returns, or allow production and growth to slow.
What it can choose is how painful that adjustment will be. If weaker external demand is met by encouraging more borrowing and domestic investment, regardless of whether that investment is economically justified, China risks postponing the inevitable. China therefore faces the same basic choice Japan confronted, but with deeper imbalances and less accommodating global conditions. It can shift a larger share of national income toward households and allow consumption to absorb more of what the economy produces; or it can continue relying on investment, despite increasingly weak returns; or it can allow production and growth to slow. The first choice requires a substantial change in the domestic distribution of income and the incentives to save. The second risks still more debt and excess capacity and, ultimately, a more painful adjustment. The third implies higher unemployment and weaker growth.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
China faces three options: shift a larger share of national income to households so consumption absorbs more output, keep relying on investment despite weak returns, or allow production and growth to slow.
China confronts the same basic choice Japan faced, but with deeper imbalances and less accommodating global conditions, and can choose only how painful the adjustment will be.
Meeting weaker external demand with more borrowing and domestic investment, regardless of whether it is economically justified, risks further debt and excess capacity and a more painful adjustment, while slower growth implies higher unemployment.
Related Articles:
The Year of the Trojan Fire Horse: China’s Imbalanced Economy and Unrelenting Mercantilism— About 30% of Chinese industrial companies are unprofitable "zombies" kept alive by subsidies far larger than those elsewhere, rather than exiting amid falling industrial producer prices. Countries with large increases in manufactured imports from China also saw slowdowns in domestic manufacturing, including declining manufacturing shares of output across most of Southeast Asia.
Sticking with What Works: Raising GDP Forecast on China’s Manufacturing Push— Stronger Chinese growth driven by export-oriented manufacturing may not produce net positive spillovers: for every 1pp export-driven boost to China's GDP, other economies may see a 0.1–0.3pp drag, with high-tech producers such as Europe and Japan facing greater pressure. Cheaper Chinese goods continue to exert a disinflationary impulse.
Record Influx Of University Graduates Pushes China’s Youth Unemployment Rate To 18.9%— China's urban unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds excluding students reached 18.9%, the highest since the statistics agency revised its methodology to exclude students. A record influx of university graduates is entering a job market weighed down by weak domestic demand and growing adoption of artificial intelligence.
AI Summary.The authors estimate roughly 57 gigawatts of operating US data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of about 509 gigawatts, which is not a completion forecast since projects may be delayed, scaled back, or abandoned. Their central scenario has 182.8 gigawatts of added capacity becoming operational through 2032, 117.2 gigawatts completed later, and 226.9 gigawatts never completed.
Stijn Van NieuwerburghBrookings Papers on Economic Activity
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh projects ~$10.3T will be spent on the AI buildout over 2025–2032, averaging 3.63% of GDP. He estimates 2/3 of that spending reflects IT equipment and one-third real estate and associated power infrastructure.
How much of the planned data center pipeline gets built?
Core argument: Using Cleanview project-level data from July 2026, the authors estimate roughly 57 GW of operating U.S. data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of roughly 509 GW, which they stress is not a completion forecast.
The required investment is enormous. A representative 200 MW AI training campus costs roughly $8.2 billion, about two-thirds of which reflects IT equipment and one-third the real estate and associated power infrastructure. We estimate that 183 GW is completed by 2032 with a further 118 GW completed after 2032. This pipeline will trigger about $10.3 trillion dollars of investment over 2025–2032. At an average of 3.63% of GDP per year, the projected buildout would be larger relative to the economy than the major U.S. canal, railroad, electrification, highway, and telecommunications investment booms. It would double the electricity consumption of the entire U.S. residential sector.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Using Cleanview project-level data from July 2026, the authors estimate roughly 57 GW of operating U.S. data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of roughly 509 GW, which they stress is not a completion forecast.
The authors’ central scenario allocates the announced pipeline so that 182.8 GW of additional U.S. capacity becomes operational during 2025–32, including 19.0 GW tied to projects already operational in 2025 or 2026.
The authors’ scenario has 117.2 GW of planned data center capacity completed after 2032 and 226.9 GW never completed, applying lower realization rates to more distant and less fully documented projects.
Related Articles:
Rear Window— Major cloud providers posted annual revenue growth of 37% at Amazon Web Services, 43% at Microsoft Azure and 82% at Google Cloud, with rising revenue backlogs of $514bn and $496bn respectively at Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services. Earnings growth appears highly contingent on continued hyperscaler capital spending and research, which rose from $460bn to $870bn.
AI Set to be Largest CapEx Cycle Ever … and Soon Majority Externally Financed— Hyperscaler and data-center investment is tracking toward $1.5tn annually by 2030, which in real terms would exceed the 2005-06 housing boom, the 1990s fiber peak, and the 1882 railroad peak combined. External debt and equity are projected to fund close to 90% of the buildout, making it dependent on credit markets.
The Summer I Turned Pretty— A warning sign in a boom cycle is when companies closest to final demand weaken while capital spending beneficiaries keep thriving, as when telecom operators' shares rolled over while communications equipment stocks kept rising. Semiconductor stock prices and free cash flow are soaring while large cloud providers' shares stagnate and their free cash flow plummets.
AI Summary.Prime-age adults aged 25–54 and older workers aged 55–64 have higher employment rates in Europe than in the US, while US youth employment is higher because Europeans spend longer in education. The share of young people not in education, employment or training is higher in the US than in Europe.
Chris GilesFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Despite Europe’s high social spending relative to the US, Chris Giles notes that prime-age adult (25–54) labor force participation in the Eurozone has overtaken that of the US, and there has been a dramatic convergence in the LFP of older workers.
Do Europeans work less than Americans?
Core argument: Prime-age adults aged 25–54 in Europe are more likely to be employed than their US counterparts, whether measured with EU or Eurozone data, and Europeans aged 55–64 also have higher employment rates than Americans.
It does not matter whether you use EU or Eurozone data, prime-age adults (between 25 and 54) in Europe are more likely to be in work than those in the US. Older people (between 55 and 64) also have higher employment rates in Europe. Younger people (between 15 and 24) are more likely to have a job in the US, but that results from Europeans educating themselves for longer. The proportion of young people not in education, employment or training is higher in the US than in Europe. So welfare is not stopping work. More than that, the higher-welfare north of Europe tends to have higher employment rates than the south, although there is convergence within the Eurozone. Spain, in particular, has enjoyed rapid improvements.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Prime-age adults aged 25–54 in Europe are more likely to be employed than their US counterparts, whether measured with EU or Eurozone data, and Europeans aged 55–64 also have higher employment rates than Americans.
Young people aged 15–24 are more likely to have a job in the US than in Europe, but that gap results from Europeans spending longer in education, and the share not in education, employment or training is higher in the US.
The higher-welfare north of Europe tends to have higher employment rates than the south, with convergence within the Eurozone and rapid improvement in Spain.
Related Articles:
Why Do Americans No Longer Work So Much More Than Non-Americans?— About half of the 1990s gap between American and European hours worked had reversed by the end of the 2010s. The authors estimate US hours per person declined after the 2000s because of rising benefits for the non-employed—especially health benefits like Medicaid—while non-US hours rose with higher wages and lower work costs.
The Future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe— A European Union competitiveness report attributes the EU's labour productivity growth gap with the US largely to weaker activity in information and communications technology and large-scale digital services; excluding main ICT sectors, EU productivity was broadly at par with the US from 2000-2019. It estimates Europe's investment share must rise about 5 percentage points of GDP.
Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking”— A debate on U.S. fiscal policy argues that spending increases, rather than the tax increases needed to fund them, slow growth, and that higher taxes would reduce the expected value of America's innovative risk-taking. The argument holds that cutting debt below 100% of GDP is critical.
AI Summary.Net US investment has fallen from roughly 40% of gross investment in the 1970s to about 25% in the past decade, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment now just replaces depreciating capital. The author attributes this gap to modern investment being more information-technology-related, which depreciates faster and requires more frequent replacement.
Timothy TaylorConversable Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.
Why does less of US gross investment add net capital?
Core argument: US net investment has run at about 25% of gross investment over the past decade, down from roughly 40% in the 1970s, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciated capital.
The figure divides net investment by gross investment. Back in the 1970s, net investment was often around 40% of gross investment, but the share has been slumping over time. For the last decade or so, net investment has been about 25% of the gross–that is, about three-quarters of gross investment is just making up for depreciation of the pre-existing capital stock. The likely reason for the growing gap between gross and net investment is that modern investment is more likely to be related to information technology [which] depreciates more rapidly and thus needs to be replaced and updated more often. If we want the average US worker to be using a greater amount of capital on the job–which was one of the key drivers of rising labor productivity in the past–it now takes a bigger rise in gross investment to lead to a given rise in net investment.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
US net investment has run at about 25% of gross investment over the past decade, down from roughly 40% in the 1970s, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciated capital.
The likely reason for the widening gap between gross and net US investment is that modern investment is more tied to information technology, which depreciates more rapidly and must be replaced and updated more often.
Raising the capital used by the average US worker—a key driver of past labor productivity growth—now requires a larger rise in gross investment to achieve a given rise in net investment.
Related Articles:
US Stock Market To Stop Shrinking For First Time In 23 Years— Goldman Sachs estimates that net supply of US equity — new shares issued less shares removed by buybacks and take-privates — will be roughly flat in 2026 after being negative since 2003, with a larger influx expected in 2027 as lock-up periods on this year's initial public offerings expire.
Capital Is Making a Comeback— Tangible investment in property, factories and equipment fell from 12.5% to 8.5% of private gross domestic product, while intangible investment in intellectual property, software and process knowledge rose from about 11.5% to 16.75%. The author argues demand for tangible capital investment will now have to rise.
The Transition to a Higher Cost of Capital— Bond yields near 4.5% sit below the 5.5% short-term interest rate, leaving little risk premium, and those yields have been enough to draw buyers back toward normal bond holdings. The author argues yields still need to rise to a sustainable cost of capital given structurally higher fiscal and inflationary spending.
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.
