Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…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
  • “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
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “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 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
  • “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 offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Wednesday, February 27, 2019

AI Summary. The share of Americans who see housing as overvalued is at its highest since the 2006 bubble, alongside higher mortgage rates and a recovery in house prices from their early-2010s low. Overall consumer housing sentiment remains supported by heightened speculation, even as valuation judgments turn negative.

Matthew Klein Barron's
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

US consumers are increasingly skeptical about housing valuations, reaching levels not seen since the 2006 bubble, driven by rising mortgage rates & a recovery in house prices. @M_C_Klein

Do Americans see housing as overvalued while speculation sustains sentiment?

Core argument: American skepticism about housing valuations has reached its highest level since the 2006 bubble, driven by rising mortgage rates and a recovery in house prices from their early 2010s trough.

American skepticism about housing valuations has reached its highest level since the 2006 bubble, driven by rising mortgage rates and a recovery in house prices from their early 2010s trough. For most of the past four decades, valuation judgments have outweighed speculative considerations, but this trend has shifted in recent years. Despite the negative sentiment on valuations, overall consumer sentiment remains buoyed by heightened speculation. This shift suggests that while consumers are wary of current price levels, speculative activity is sustaining market interest, highlighting a potential disconnect between perceived value and market behavior.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. American skepticism about housing valuations has reached its highest level since the 2006 bubble, driven by rising mortgage rates and a recovery in house prices from their early 2010s trough.
  2. Valuation judgments outweighed speculative considerations in U.S. consumers' housing views for most of the past four decades, a pattern that has shifted in recent years.
  3. Overall U.S. consumer sentiment toward housing remains buoyed by heightened speculation despite negative views on valuations.

"...For most of the past four decades, judgments about valuations have been more important than speculative considerations. That has changed markedly in the past few years. As mortgage rates have increased and house prices have recovered from their trough in the early 2010s, American consumers now believe that valuations are at their least attractive since the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Overall sentiment has held up because speculation is now higher than ever..."

Matthew Klein, "U.S. Consumers Are Souring on the Housing Market,"Barrons, February 27, 2019, https://www.barrons.com/articles/u-s-consumers-are-souring-on-the-housing-market-51551270600

AI Summary. U.S. manufacturing has added nearly 1m jobs since 2010, its largest sustained employment gain in decades, following the loss of 5.7m jobs between 2000 and 2010 that cut the sector's employment base by nearly a third. Transportation equipment led the rebound with roughly 300,000 jobs, while fabricated metals and machinery together added about 230,000.

Jaison Abel and Richard Deitz Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Manufacturing jobs have rebounded since 2010, adding nearly 1m jobs, led by transportation equipment & fabricated metals/machinery. Despite gains, base remains a fraction of 1980s level.

Have U.S. manufacturing jobs rebounded after a decade of steep losses?

Core argument: U.S. manufacturing has added nearly 1m jobs since 2010, its largest employment gain since the 1970s and the longest sustained increase since the 1960s, following the loss of 5.7m jobs from 2000 to 2010.

The U.S. manufacturing sector has experienced its most significant employment gain since the 1970s, adding nearly 1m jobs since 2010. This uptick follows a severe decline from 2000 to 2010, when 5.7m jobs were lost, reducing the manufacturing employment base by nearly a third. The rebound is led by the transportation equipment industry, which added around 300,000 jobs, and the fabricated metals and machinery industries, which together added about 230,000 jobs. Despite these gains, the manufacturing employment base remains a fraction of its early 1980s level. Challenges such as trade policy uncertainty and competition from overseas persist, particularly affecting sectors reliant on steel and aluminum. Nonetheless, reshoring efforts and strong domestic demand have contributed to this modest recovery, marking the longest sustained increase in manufacturing employment since the 1960s.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. U.S. manufacturing has added nearly 1m jobs since 2010, its largest employment gain since the 1970s and the longest sustained increase since the 1960s, following the loss of 5.7m jobs from 2000 to 2010.
  2. Transportation equipment led the rebound with roughly 300,000 jobs added, while fabricated metals and machinery together added about 230,000, though the manufacturing employment base remains a fraction of its early 1980s level.
  3. Reshoring efforts and strong domestic demand have supported the recovery, while trade policy uncertainty and overseas competition continue to weigh on sectors reliant on steel and aluminum.

Jaison Abel and Richard Deitz, "The (Modest) Rebound in Manufacturing Jobs," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, February 4, 2019, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/the-modest-rebound-in-manufacturing-jobs.html

Despite the recent increase in jobs, the nation’s manufacturing employment base is a fraction of what it was in the early 1980s, even as output in the sector has continued to increase. Whether manufacturing jobs continue to grow going forward is an open question. No doubt, recent tariffs and associated trade policy uncertainty pose significant challenges for continued job growth in the manufacturing industry, particularly in sectors that rely on steel and aluminum as inputs to the production process.

In our next post, we will look at where within the United States manufacturing jobs have been growing. It turns out the places that lost the most manufacturing jobs are not necessarily the ones where those jobs are coming back.

Between 2000 and 2010, every sector within the manufacturing industry lost jobs. The most significant declines occurred in the computers and electronics industry and the transportation equipment industry. These two industries provide a case in point about the two driving forces that have pushed down manufacturing employment so significantly in recent decades. The transportation equipment industry lost nearly 730,000 jobs during this ten year period, due in large part to productivity gains tied to automation. The computers and electronics industry shed more than 720,000 jobs between 2000 and 2010. While also seeing productivity gains reducing the need for workers, many industries have faced intense competition from overseas, and outsourcing and offshoring has become widespread. Apparel is an example of an industry that suffered severe job losses in the United States as production shifted overseas. Other industries, such as fabricated metals and machinery, saw steep job losses due to a combination of productivity gains and import competition. At the other end of the spectrum, job losses were minimal in the food, beverages, and petroleum and coal industries.

The bounce back in manufacturing jobs has been led by the transportation equipment industry, which added around 300,000 jobs, roughly a third of the net increase over this period. As the costs of overseas labor and shipping products from other parts of the world have climbed, manufacturers started to bring jobs back to the United States. Such reshoring of manufacturing jobs has been particularly pronounced in the automotive industry. The fabricated metals and machinery industries—which were hit hard between 2000 and 2010—also saw significant gains, together adding about 230,000 jobs. Fueled by strong domestic demand throughout the expansion following the Great Recession, the food and beverages industries—which had largely been insulated from job losses during the early 2000s—saw a combined increase of nearly 240,000 jobs.

Looking Ahead

Although the manufacturing industry as a whole saw a large employment decline followed by a modest rebound, some sectors within the manufacturing industry have seen a substantial uptick in jobs over the last several years, while other sectors continue to shed jobs. The chart below shows the net change in manufacturing jobs by industry for the 2000-10 period compared to the 2010-17 period.

In 1980, there were close to 20 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, a figure that declined to around 12 million following the Great Recession. Much of this decline was concentrated in recessions—though the business cycle in and of itself is not the main driver of the waning of manufacturing jobs in recent decades. Many of these jobs simply disappeared and did not come back during the subsequent recoveries. Technological advances, particularly automation, as well as globalization, particularly rising import competition from China, are the primary contributors to this long-term decline in manufacturing employment. A surprisingly large portion of this decline occurred between 2000 and 2010, when the nation lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs. However, employment stabilized beginning in 2010, and nearly a million manufacturing jobs have been gained since then. While this may not seem like much on the heels of such a momentous decline, this sustained increase in manufacturing employment represents the longest such stretch since the 1960s, and the nation has not added this many manufacturing jobs since the 1970s.

Changes within the Manufacturing Industry

The (Modest) Rebound in Manufacturing Jobs

Jaison R. Abel and Richard Deitz

The United States lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010, reducing the nation’s manufacturing employment base by nearly a third. These job losses and their causes have been well documented in the popular press and in academic circles. Less well recognized is the modest yet significant rebound in manufacturing jobs that has been underway for several years. Indeed, employment in the manufacturing industry began to stabilize in 2010, and the nation has added nearly 1 million jobs since then. Although modest in magnitude, this uptick in manufacturing jobs represents the longest sustained increase since the 1960s and bucks a decades-long trend of secular decline in employment in the goods producing sector of the economy. This is the first of two posts on the rebound in manufacturing jobs. In this post, we outline the manufacturing jobs recovery and assess which sectors within the manufacturing industry are driving this increase. The second post will focus on the geography of the manufacturing employment rebound. It will examine where manufacturing jobs are growing and where they are continuing to decline, with a focus on how areas in the New York-Northern New Jersey region have fared.

Friday, March 1, 2019

AI Summary. An analysis of cancer survival rates across the United States and European countries finds wide variation in outcomes, and the authors argue that higher U.S. health care spending is associated with better cancer survival than in Europe.

Tomas Philipson, Michael Eber, Darius N. Lakdawalla, Mitra Corral, Rena Conti and Dana P. Goldman Health Affairs
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

US healthcare spending may contribute to better cancer survival rates compared to Europe. Understanding these differences is crucial for economists and business professionals as they assess the implications of healthcare spending on national productivity and economic growth.

Does higher U.S. health care spending buy better cancer survival than Europe?

Core argument: The analysis suggests that higher U.S. health care spending may contribute to better cancer survival rates than those in Europe, framing the comparison as a question of whether the added expenditure is "worth it.".

An analysis of cancer survival rates across various countries reveals significant disparities, with northern European nations like Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales showing varied outcomes. While individual country data is not detailed, the broader comparison highlights the impact of healthcare spending on survival rates. The study suggests that higher healthcare expenditures in the U.S. may contribute to better cancer survival rates compared to Europe. This raises important questions for policymakers about the allocation of healthcare resources and the potential economic benefits of investing in healthcare infrastructure. Understanding these differences is crucial for economists and business professionals as they assess the implications of healthcare spending on national productivity and economic growth.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The analysis suggests that higher U.S. health care spending may contribute to better cancer survival rates than those in Europe, framing the comparison as a question of whether the added expenditure is "worth it.".
  2. Cancer survival rates vary across countries including Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales, though the comparison does not detail individual country outcomes.
  3. The cross-country survival comparison raises questions for policymakers about how health care resources are allocated and the potential economic benefits of investing in health care infrastructure.

They replicated this table largely northern European counties (Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales) however they don't provide individual country level data in the paper, though their Exhibit 4 (attached) shows that they did do the calculations, just didn't include them.

An Analysis of Whether Higher Health Care Spending in the United States versus Europe Is ‘Worth It’ in the Case of Cancer: Extended Excerpt Image 1


An Analysis of Whether Higher Health Care Spending in the United States versus Europe Is ‘Worth It’ in the Case of Cancer: Extended Excerpt Image 2


Tomas Philipson, Michael Eber, Darius N. Lakdawalla, Mitra Corral, Rena Conti and Dana P. Goldman, "An Analysis of Whether Higher Health Care Spending in the United States versus Europe Is ‘Worth It’ in the Case of Cancer,"Health Affairs, April 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829769/

CEA Staff "The Oppertunity Costs of Socialism," The Council of Economic Advisers," October 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Opportunity-Costs-of-Socialism.pdf

Random Critical Analysis, "Why everything you have said about the determinants of health expenditure is wrong in one million charts: a response to Noah Smith.," November 19, 2018, https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2018/11/19/why-everything-you-know-about-healthcare-is-wrong-in-one-million-charts-a-response-to-noah-smith/

4) From CEA Cancer survival rates

3) From RCA MRI/Population

2) RCA Health Care expenditure consumption measure

1) From RCA Medical expenditures and # of health care workers

Plz find the source cited for the comparison of cancer survival rates in the Whitehouse study and see if we can view it country by country.