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


Tuesday, September 29, 2026

AI Summary. An expanded unemployment measure for young college graduates — including those outside the labor force who report wanting a job — averaged 10.4% in the most recent summer, the highest of the five summers compared and 0.3 percentage points above the prior high. Estimated associations with occupational AI exposure are positive but not statistically significant.

Robert Fairlie and Jane Wu National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:

For American college graduates aged 22 to 25 and not in school, summer unemployment was 7.3% in 2026, versus 7.1%, 6.3%, 7.8%, and 7.2% in 2022–25. These are ordinary seasonal peaks, with no evidence of an upward trend. A broader measure tells a similar story.

Is AI raising unemployment among recent college graduates?

Core argument: On the expanded unemployment measure including “sidelined” young college graduates, the June–August average was 10.4% in 2026, compared with 9.4% in 2022, 9.3% in 2023, 10.1% in 2024 and 9.4% in 2025.

Figure 2b displays the seasonal comparison for our expanded unemployment measure, which includes young college graduates who are “sidelined,” those not officially defined as being in the labor force but nonetheless report “wanting a job.” Averaging over June, July and August, the expanded measure was 10.4% in 2026, compared with 9.4% in 2022, 9.3% in 2023, 10.1% in 2024 and 9.4% in 2025. Summer 2026 is the highest of the five summers under this definition, although it exceeds the previous high by only 0.3 percentage points. The expanded measure thus indicates a larger increase relative to 2025, while also showing that high rates in the summer are not unique to 2026. The coefficient estimates of interactions between summer 2026 and both measures of occupational AI exposure are positive, but not statistically significant. The point estimate of the interaction with occupational teleworkability is positive but difficult to separate cleanly from AI exposure (Tables 4-6).

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. On the expanded unemployment measure including “sidelined” young college graduates, the June–August average was 10.4% in 2026, compared with 9.4% in 2022, 9.3% in 2023, 10.1% in 2024 and 9.4% in 2025.
  2. Summer 2026 is the highest of the five summers on the expanded measure but exceeds the prior high by only 0.3 percentage points, indicating high summer rates are not unique to 2026.
  3. Coefficient estimates of interactions between summer 2026 and both measures of occupational AI exposure are positive but not statistically significant, and the positive point estimate for occupational teleworkability is difficult to separate cleanly from AI exposure.

Related Articles:

  • Graduating into Disruption: Labor Market Outcomes for AI-Exposed College Majors — College graduates in the majors most exposed to artificial intelligence show statistically significant employment declines following the arrival of AI chatbots, with the most-exposed 10% of majors down about 5 percentage points and the seventh and eighth deciles down about 2 points. The authors note flat pre-2020 trends and precise timing argue against alternative explanations such as uneven post-pandemic recovery.
  • The Jobs Apocalypse Is Postponed. An AI Jobs Boom Is Here — Employment in five industries tied to the data-centre build-out, including electrical contracting and equipment manufacturing, has risen roughly 320,000 above what broader construction and manufacturing trends would suggest. Engineers, software developers, mathematicians and data scientists have added about 730,000 jobs above the trend for professional employment overall.
  • Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence — Employment for workers aged 22–25 in the occupations most exposed to artificial intelligence has declined roughly 18pp relative to less-exposed peers, with no comparable decline in other age groups. The authors find this operates mainly through reduced hiring, concentrated where AI substitutes for human tasks rather than complements them.

AI Summary. Wall Street analysts covering technology project the sector's operating cash flow will more than double to roughly $2.4tn by 2028, a gain of over $1.2tn, while analysts covering the rest of the S&P 500 — technology's customers — project those firms will add far less cash flow. These sector-by-sector forecasts are internally inconsistent.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Tech analysts expect sector operating cash flow to more than double to ~$2.4T by 2028. Analysts covering other S&P 500 sectors (tech’s customers) see far less cash growth in their sectors. Slok “raises the question of who exactly will be writing all those checks to buy AI services.”

Are tech cash flow forecasts inconsistent with customers' projected growth?

Core argument: Analysts covering the tech sector expect its operating cash flow to more than double to roughly $2.4tn by 2028, an increase of over $1.2tn.

Wall Street equity analysts work in sector silos, and when you add up their forecasts, the numbers are internally inconsistent. The analysts covering tech expect the sector's operating cash flow to more than double to roughly $2.4 trillion by 2028, an increase of over $1.2 trillion. Meanwhile, the analysts covering the other sectors in the S&P 500, which are tech's customers, expect those companies to add much less operating cash flow. In other words, the tech silo is betting on a future in which demand for AI and tech services explodes, while the silos covering the companies that would pay for those services see a much more modest outlook. Both cannot be right at the same time. The bottom line is that either tech's customers will generate a lot more cash than their analysts expect, or tech's cash flow forecasts are too optimistic, which raises the question of who exactly will be writing all those checks to buy AI services.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Analysts covering the tech sector expect its operating cash flow to more than double to roughly $2.4tn by 2028, an increase of over $1.2tn.
  2. Analysts covering the other S&P 500 sectors, which are tech's customers, expect those companies to add much less operating cash flow, leaving the combined forecasts internally inconsistent.
  3. Either tech's customers will generate much more cash than their analysts expect, or tech's cash flow forecasts are too optimistic, which raises the question of who will pay for AI services.

Related Articles:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 Summary. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if interest rates rose to 1 percentage point above its baseline, federal debt held by the public would reach 222% of GDP by 2056, 47 percentage points above baseline, with primary deficits averaging 2.3% of GDP and annual growth 0.1 percentage point slower.

CBO Staff Congressional Budget OffIce
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

If interest rates rise 1pp above CBO’s current extended baseline (a mean rate of 4% over 2026–2056), CBO projects federal debt held by the public will be 222% of GDP in 2056, versus 175% under the current baseline.

How much would higher interest rates raise projected federal debt?

Core argument: CBO projects that under a scenario in which interest rates rise to 1 percentage point above its extended baseline, debt held by the public would reach 222% of GDP in fiscal year 2056, 47 percentage points above the extended baseline.

Under a scenario in which interest rates increased until they were 1 percentage point higher than in CBO’s extended baseline, primary deficits—that is, deficits excluding net outlays for interest—would average 2.3% of GDP over the 2026–2056 period, 0.2 percentage points larger than in the extended baseline. Debt held by the public would grow to 222 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2056, 47 percentage points larger than in the extended baseline. Average annual GDP growth over the 2026–2056 period would be 0.1 percentage point slower than in CBO’s extended baseline, and the average interest rate on federal debt would be 0.7 percentage points higher.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. CBO projects that under a scenario in which interest rates rise to 1 percentage point above its extended baseline, debt held by the public would reach 222% of GDP in fiscal year 2056, 47 percentage points above the extended baseline.
  2. Primary deficits, which exclude net outlays for interest, would average 2.3% of GDP over 2026–2056 in CBO’s higher-interest-rate scenario, 0.2 percentage points larger than in its extended baseline.
  3. Under CBO’s higher-interest-rate scenario, average annual GDP growth over 2026–2056 would be 0.1 percentage point slower and the average interest rate on federal debt 0.7 percentage points higher than in its extended baseline.

Related Articles:

  • The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 — The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit will grow from $1.9tn (5.8% of GDP) to $3.1tn (6.7%) over a decade, above the 3.8% averaged over the past 50 years, with rising net interest costs driving much of the increase. Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 101% to 120% of GDP.
  • How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence? — The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a permanent 0.5 percentage point increase in annual productivity growth would lower publicly held federal debt after 30 years by 39% of GDP, offsetting roughly half the projected rise from 101% of GDP to 175%. Higher revenue and slower spending growth outweigh higher interest costs.
  • Soaring Bond Yields, Gaping Deficits and Towering Debts: What Could Go Wrong? — An analysis of 22 rich countries estimates that if each refinanced its entire debt at current five-year bond yields, Britain would need the largest primary surplus to stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio, about 1.5%, followed by Italy at 1.4%, France at 1.2% and America at 1%.

AI Summary. The US 30-year Treasury yield surpassed 5.59%, a level last seen in 2002, amid a selloff across global debt markets, while the 10-year yield at 5.24% reached its highest since 2007 and two-year yields sat near 4.9%. A Bloomberg gauge shows Treasuries have lost 2.6% this year after a 6.3% gain the prior year.

Sydney Maki Bloomberg
Date Posted:

The US 30-year Treasury yield hit 5.61%, its highest level since 2002. The US 10-year Treasury yield rose to 5.281%.

Are long-term Treasury yields reaching their highest levels in decades?

Core argument: The US 30-year Treasury yield surpassed 5.59% to reach its highest level since 2002, rising for a sixth straight day amid a deepening selloff across global debt markets.

Yields on the US Treasury’s longest-dated bond rose for a sixth straight day, crossing another key threshold amid a deepening selloff across global debt markets. The 30-year rate surpassed 5.61% to touch a level last seen in 2002, in the wake of the dot-com bust. Treasuries have lost 2.6% so far this year, a Bloomberg gauge shows, compared with a 6.3% gain last year. And the selloff has hit debt across maturities, with the 10-year yield, at 5.281%, trading at its highest since 2007. Two-year yields are at about 4.9%, the last major maturity to linger below 5%.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The US 30-year Treasury yield surpassed 5.59% to reach its highest level since 2002, rising for a sixth straight day amid a deepening selloff across global debt markets.
  2. The 10-year Treasury yield hit 5.24%, its highest since 2007, while two-year yields stood at about 4.9%, the last major maturity below 5%.
  3. Treasuries have lost 2.6% so far this year on a Bloomberg gauge, compared with a 6.3% gain last year.

Related Articles:

  • 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.
  • Booms, Bombs and Bonds: Interest Rates, Part I — Because investors can buy bonds across borders, an investment boom in one country such as the United States can draw in loanable funds from abroad and push up interest rates in other nations. The linkage is not one-for-one, since investors also weigh expected exchange-rate changes and the resulting capital gains or losses.
  • 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.

AI Summary. U.S. survey data on high school students show the share of 9th graders identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual fell from 17% to 11% over two years, compared with a decline from 18% to 16% among 12th graders. The drop was concentrated among girls, from 27% to 22%, versus 9% to 7% among boys.

Jean Twenge Generation Tech
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Among US high-school students, the LGB share fell btw 2023 to 2025 by 5pp for girls (27% to 22%), and 2pp for boys (9% to 7%). The preceding rise was likewise larger for girls: +128% from 2015 to 2021, versus +99% for boys to 2023.

Are younger teens less likely to identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

Core argument: The share of U.S. 9th graders identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual fell from 17% in 2023 to 11% in 2025 in the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, while 12th graders declined from 18% to 16%.

[New data from the Youth Risk Survey of U.S. 9th to 12th graders from the CDC shows] for 12th graders, 17 and 18 years old, identifying as LGB declines only a few percentage points between 2023 and 2025 (from 18% to 16%). But the headline result is for 9th graders (14 and 15 years old): Identifying as LGB absolutely plummets between 2023 and 2025, from 17% to 11%. That really does look like a free fall. The decline appears to be driven almost entirely by girls. Identifying as LGB dropped from 27% in 2023 to 22% in 2025 among girls, and from 9% to 7% among boys. [In terms of the share of high school students reporting engaging in same-sex activity] most high school students are not sexually active, so this is only a subsample of the larger group. For boys, there’s been a fairly steady rise in same-sex partners, not too different from the pattern of identifying as LGB among boys. The story is different for girls, where having non-heterosexual sex peaked in 2021 and then fell steeply.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The share of U.S. 9th graders identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual fell from 17% in 2023 to 11% in 2025 in the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, while 12th graders declined from 18% to 16%.
  2. The decline appears driven almost entirely by girls, whose LGB identification fell from 27% in 2023 to 22% in 2025, compared with a drop from 9% to 7% among boys.
  3. Among sexually active teens, the share of boys reporting at least one same-sex partner has risen fairly steadily, while for girls it peaked in 2021 and then fell steeply.

Related Articles:

  • Is There Really a Generational Difference in Identifying as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual? — General Social Survey data show that increases among young American adults appear in same-sex sexual behavior as well as in identification, with 20% reporting a same-sex partner versus 18.5% identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The increases are larger among 27- to 41-year-olds.
  • Teens Used To Be Happier. What Changed? — The share of US high school seniors describing themselves as "very happy" peaked at 24.8% and remained around 24.4% before falling to 11.4% at its low, recovering only to 12.7%, well below the 17.9% recorded before the pandemic. The decline coincided with smartphones and social media becoming pervasive.
  • US College Students’ Well-Being — A study of US college students finds moderate-to-severe depression reported by 26% of students at one elite institution, 22% reporting moderate-to-severe anxiety and 10% contemplating suicide. Poorer mental health is associated with being female, little exercise, low grades, and financial aid; financial stress is associated with higher suicidal thoughts.

AI Summary. US defense contractors face a coming requirement to remove certain metals sourced from China and other adversary countries from their supply chains, which many contractors say isn't feasible, while some Pentagon officials target a "closed loop" of US and allied supply for some minerals by 2030.

Heather Somerville and Andrew Mollica Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:

CRU, a UK commodities-data provider, projects China will lose market share in many of the elements and minerals it has most tightly controlled by 2030, with the exception of cobalt.

Can defense contractors remove Chinese-sourced critical minerals from supply chains?

Core argument: U.S. defense contractors will be required by next year to eliminate certain metals sourced from adversary countries including China, a requirement many contractors say isn’t feasible despite the progress being made.

By next year, U.S. defense contractors will be required to eliminate from their supply chain certain metals sourced from adversary countries including China, a requirement that many contractors say isn’t feasible despite the progress being made. Some Pentagon officials say they are aiming for a “closed loop” of U.S. and allied supply chains for some minerals by 2030. In April, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Rick Switzer said that with help from Japan and Europe, the U.S. has the capacity to develop an end-to-end critical-minerals supply chain free of China within six to 12 months, if the country were pressed to do so. Recent projections from CRU, a London-based commodities-data provider, show China losing market share by the end of the decade in many of the elements and minerals it had most tightly controlled.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. U.S. defense contractors will be required by next year to eliminate certain metals sourced from adversary countries including China, a requirement many contractors say isn’t feasible despite the progress being made.
  2. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Rick Switzer said in April that, with help from Japan and Europe, the U.S. has the capacity to develop an end-to-end critical-minerals supply chain free of China within six to 12 months if pressed to do so.
  3. Projections from CRU, a London-based commodities-data provider, show China losing market share by the end of the decade in many of the elements and minerals it had most tightly controlled, while some Pentagon officials aim for a “closed loop” of U.S. and allied supply chains for some minerals by 2030.

Related Articles:

  • China Restricts Trading With Some US Rare Earth Companies — China has added 10 American companies to its "entities list," restricting trading with firms central to US efforts to build a rare earth supply chain rivaling Beijing's, including USA Rare Earth, MP Materials, and motor manufacturer Aveox.
  • How to Fight an Economic War — China earned about $3.4bn from exporting rare-earth elements and magnets in a year, while the U.S. Geological Survey estimates a 30% disruption to U.S. supply of the rare-earth element neodymium alone would cut U.S. GDP by 2.2%, over $600bn. This asymmetry gives Chinese export controls their leverage.
  • How Japan Built a Rare-Earth Supply Chain Without China — Japan has reduced its reliance on Chinese rare earths, with industry estimates putting China's share of Japanese rare-earth imports at roughly 60% to 70%, down from 90% or more. Japan's alternative chain runs from an Australian open-pit mine through a separation plant in Malaysia to Japanese magnet makers supplying automakers.

Wednesday, September 30, 2026

AI Summary. Entrepreneurship by businesses with employees is flat or declining, including in AI-intensive information and professional services, where establishment entry has been flat or falling and young-firm employment in AI-exposed industries is falling. Applications for likely solo businesses with no employees rose steeply in those AI-intensive sectors, but self-employment as a main job is flat, suggesting side hustles.

Nathan Goldschlag Economic Innovation Group
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Nathan Goldschlag finds that available federal data do not yet establish that AI is boosting entrepreneurship. “Across different cuts of the data, there is no clear evidence of AI affecting entrepreneurship, either for likely employers or nonemployers.”

Is AI driving a boom in new employer businesses?

Core argument: Business applications likely to become employer businesses were flat in 2025 and began rising in 2026, with fewer applications of the kind having the highest chance of becoming an employer business.

Employer entrepreneurship is at best rising modestly, and at worst has been falling for several years already. The number of business applications likely to become an employer business was flat in 2025 and began rising in 2026. Fewer of those applications have been the kind that have the highest chance of becoming an employer. Nonemployer entrepreneurship, or “solopreneurship,” is likely rising, but not as the main job of the solopreneurs. These are probably side hustles. Likely nonemployer business applications rose significantly in 2025 and early 2026. But the share of workers claiming to be self-employed nonemployers in their main job — in other words, business owners with no employees — is flat (though noisy). AI-intensive sectors and industries are no exception. Establishment entry in AI-intensive sectors (information and professional services) has been flat or falling in recent years.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Business applications likely to become employer businesses were flat in 2025 and began rising in 2026, with fewer applications of the kind having the highest chance of becoming an employer business.
  2. Likely nonemployer business applications rose significantly in 2025 and early 2026, going vertical in the most AI-intensive sectors of information and professional services, while other sectors kept pace until early 2026 and then flattened.
  3. The share of workers reporting self-employment as nonemployers in their main job is flat, though noisy, including among workers in AI-exposed occupations in 2025 and early 2026.

Related Articles:

  • The Age Of The Solopreneur — A surge in US business formation is being driven by solo entrepreneurs, with growth in AI tool usage and in solopreneur activity in high-AI-adoption sectors suggesting artificial intelligence accounts for a meaningful portion of the increase. The authors argue AI is lowering barriers to starting and growing a business by expanding what one-person firms can do.
  • America Has Become An Entrepreneur’s Paradise — US growth in new-business applications is concentrated in professional services (up 25% over four years), retail (18%), and health care and social assistance (18%) rather than artificial-intelligence startups. The share of applications the Census Bureau deems likely to hire at least one employee has fallen to 30% from 38%.
  • Which Entrepreneurs Boost Productivity? — The authors find that a minority of entrepreneurs are "transformative" — generating disproportionate productivity gains, scoring high on IQ tests, being well-educated, and hiring research and development workers. They argue that economies with more such entrepreneurs and R&D workers sustain higher long-run productivity growth.

AI Summary. Polling finds voters across party lines support populist price caps: nearly three-quarters back capping child-care costs for working families and a government website directing consumers to discounted prescription drugs, and nearly four in five back capping credit-card interest rates at 10%.

Aaron Zitner Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:

A WSJ survey finds bipartisan support for greater state intervention in markets: 96% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans favor requiring insurers to cover all services and medicines prescribed by doctors, while 78% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans favor capping credit card interest rates at 10%.

Do voters across party lines support capping prices and interest rates?

Core argument: Nearly 80% of voters support capping credit-card interest rates at 10%, a measure backed in Congress by progressive Bernie Sanders and conservative Josh Hawley, with President Trump calling for a similar measure.

Americans in both parties back government-imposed price caps and other market interventions to make life more affordable, suggesting new support for populist ideas that were once largely outside the political mainstream. Voters of all partisan stripes strongly support capping the cost of prescription drugs, child care and credit-card interest rates. Nearly three-quarters of voters support a cap on child-care costs for working families. Nearly four in five voters support capping credit-card interest rates at 10%. That’s drawn bipartisan support in Congress, with progressive Bernie Sanders and conservative Josh Hawley backing legislation to do so, and Trump calling for a similar measure. The Journal surveyed 1,500 voters. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Nearly 80% of voters support capping credit-card interest rates at 10%, a measure backed in Congress by progressive Bernie Sanders and conservative Josh Hawley, with President Trump calling for a similar measure.
  2. Nearly three-quarters of voters support capping child-care costs for working families, an idea backed by liberal Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren.
  3. Nearly three-quarters of voters support a government website guiding consumers to discounted drugs, which President Trump put into practice with his “Trump Rx” site.

Related Articles:

  • America’s Support for Capitalism Has Declined Over Last Decade — Just under half of Americans say capitalism is working very or somewhat well, down from 60% about a decade ago, according to a Wall Street Journal-NORC survey. Only 12% say democracy is working very or extremely well, and 16% say average citizens have considerable influence on politics.
  • Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of US Political Differences — The authors construct an index of "zero-sum thinking" — the belief that one group's economic gains come at another's expense across ethnic groups, citizens versus non-citizens, and countries in international trade. Among both moderate and strong Democrats, those in the top quartile of zero-sum thinking voted for Donald Trump at a disproportionately high rate.
  • Life Under Two: Debt, Deficits, and the AI Discontinuity — The United States averaged annual GDP growth above 3% for decades, but 2% or less is now more likely. Over ten years, the author estimates that gap amounts to a $3.36tn larger economy, $3.7tn more tax revenue, and 6m more jobs, shifting public psychology from abundance toward scarcity.

AI Summary. The gap between French and German 10-year government bond yields has widened at a pace matched only during the euro zone sovereign debt crisis. France and the UK have less room than the US to close deficits with tax increases, as tax revenues equal 43.9% of GDP in France and 35.3% in the UK versus 25.2% in the US.

John Authers Bloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

The spread between 10-year French OATs and German Bunds has widened at a pace seen only during the eurozone sovereign-debt crisis. John Authers warns that France “satisfies all the classic conditions for a major debt crisis.”

Do high tax burdens limit France and the UK's deficit options?

Core argument: The spread of 10-year French OATs over German Bunds has risen at a pace matched only during the worst days of the euro-zone sovereign debt crisis in 2011 and 2012, fueling talk of a second crisis centered in Paris.

Only in the worst days of the euro zone’s sovereign debt crisis, in 2011 and 2012, has the [spread of 10-Year French OATS over German Bunds] risen so fast. Talk of a second euro-zone crisis, this time with an epicenter in Paris, is growing, and it’s easy to see why. Why is this more of a problem for France and the UK? Beyond their deficits, they also shoulder much higher tax burdens than the US. Tax revenues are 25.2% of GDP in the US, the lowest of the major developed economies - but 35.3% in the UK and 43.9% in France. It’s hard to imagine after decades of tax-cutting, but a US politician could deal with the deficit fairly easily with a tax hike. It’s not clear that option is open to French lawmakers, even if they could somehow persuade voters to go along with them. The populist politicians of left and right, who currently look well placed in next year’s presidential elections, are in any case unlikely to try.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The spread of 10-year French OATs over German Bunds has risen at a pace matched only during the worst days of the euro-zone sovereign debt crisis in 2011 and 2012, fueling talk of a second crisis centered in Paris.
  2. Tax revenues equal 25.2% of GDP in the US, the lowest among major developed economies, versus 35.3% in the UK and 43.9% in France, leaving American politicians more room to close the deficit with a tax hike.
  3. Populist politicians of left and right, currently well placed for France’s presidential election, are unlikely to attempt tax increases to address the deficit.

Related Articles:

  • French PM to Freeze Emmanuel Macron’s Pension Reform Until 2027 — France's prime minister said he would suspend the plan to raise the retirement age to 64 until the next presidential election, while asking parties to agree on other savings. He outlined a €30bn package of spending cuts and tax rises to cut the deficit to 4.7% of national output from 5.4%.
  • Soaring Bond Yields, Gaping Deficits and Towering Debts: What Could Go Wrong? — An analysis of 22 rich countries estimates that if each refinanced its entire debt at current five-year bond yields, Britain would need the largest primary surplus to stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio, about 1.5%, followed by Italy at 1.4%, France at 1.2% and America at 1%.
  • 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%.

AI Summary. The Institute of International Finance reports global debt as a share of output rose less than 10 percentage points between 2018 and mid-2026, peaking at 337% in early 2021 before falling 27 percentage points by the end of 2023. Inflation eroded the debt burden, as it did in the UK after the Second World War.

Martin Wolf Financial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Wolf notes that the global debt-to-GDP ratio rose by less than 10pp btw 2018 and June 2026: after peaking at 337% in early 2021, it fell by 27pp by the end of 2023, as inflation boosted nominal GDP and eroded the value of existing debt.

Does inflation reduce the global debt burden?

Core argument: IIF data show the global debt-to-output ratio reached a post-Covid peak of 337% in early 2021 before falling by 27 percentage points by the end of 2023, with inflation identified as the force that eroded it.

The IIF shows that between 2018 and June 2026, the rise in the ratio of global debt to output was less than 10 percentage points. The story is striking: the ratio reached a post-Covid peak of 337% in early 2021, before falling by 27 percentage points by the end of 2023. What was this magical “debt-buster”? Good old-fashioned (and supposedly “unexpected”) inflation. This is — to put it mildly — not the first time inflation has wiped out debt. It was, to take one of countless examples, an important part of the UK’s elimination of its post-second-world-war debt. For countries able to print the money in which their debt is denominated, that is often what happens.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. IIF data show the global debt-to-output ratio reached a post-Covid peak of 337% in early 2021 before falling by 27 percentage points by the end of 2023, with inflation identified as the force that eroded it.
  2. Between 2018 and June 2026, the IIF shows the ratio of global debt to output rose by less than 10 percentage points.
  3. Inflation has wiped out debt before, forming an important part of the UK’s elimination of its post-second-world-war debt, and often does so for countries able to print the currency in which their debt is denominated.

Related Articles:

  • Are Government Bonds Safe in Times of War and Pandemic? — Government bonds severely underperform in wartime, in absolute terms and relative to equities, housing, and economic growth, unlike in financial crises when bonds tend to outperform stocks. The U.S. and U.K. reduced war-driven debt-to-GDP ratios without explicit default, using surprise inflation and financial repression that shifted fiscal burdens onto bondholders.
  • The Coming Great Repression? — Across countries and over time, higher public debt burdens are associated with lower relative returns on government bonds, the opposite of standard risk-premium predictions. The authors estimate financial repression—making banks captive bond buyers and loading them with low-return reserves—contributed 90.7 percentage points of GDP to Britain's postwar debt reduction, versus 20.3 from surprise inflation.
  • 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%.

AI Summary. A roughly $100bn Anthropic equity offering, about 5% of its implied value, would consume a meaningful share of institutions' finite new-issue budgets and investor attention, making it plausible that other issuers are delaying their own deals. Oura postponed its offering despite reporting strong demand.

Paul Kedrosky Applied Complexity
Date Posted:

Anthropic is reportedly preparing to sell $100B of stock at an ~$2T valuation. Noting postponed IPOs at Oura and OpenAI, Kedrosky argues Anthropic’s IPO may be crowding out other new issuers.

Are other issuers delaying offerings because one giant deal crowds them out?

Core argument: Anthropic’s $100 billion offering represents roughly 5% of its implied value, and would consume a meaningful amount of large institutions’ finite new-issue budgets for growth capital.

An unprecedented amount of equity supply is coming to market, much of it in one transaction, and it is increasingly plausible that other issuers are simply getting out of the way. Large institutions have finite new-issue budgets, and a $100 billion Anthropic offering would consume a meaningful amount of available growth capital. It would also dominate investor attention and create funding pressure: investors wanting Anthropic may sell or avoid smaller new issues around the same time. This may explain Oura. It reported that demand for its offering was strong, and yet it postponed it. A well-subscribed IPO being postponed suggests something beyond ordinary weak demand.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Anthropic’s $100 billion offering represents roughly 5% of its implied value, and would consume a meaningful amount of large institutions’ finite new-issue budgets for growth capital.
  2. Investors seeking Anthropic allocations may sell or avoid smaller new issues around the same time, creating funding pressure that could explain why other issuers are getting out of the way.
  3. Oura postponed its offering despite reporting strong demand, which suggests something beyond ordinary weak demand.

Related Articles:

  • SpaceX and OpenAI Are Ending Wall Street’s Era of Stock Scarcity — JPMorgan projects that share sales will add roughly $1.5tn of stock to the US equity market over the next two years even after buybacks, which would be the strongest net equity issuance since at least the late 1990s. Equity has grown cheaper relative to debt as a funding source.
  • 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.
  • The Coming Mega-IPO Flow & Funding Problem of 2026 — Adjusted for inflation, SpaceX alone would rank as the second-largest initial public offering ever, behind Saudi Aramco, and three such listings together would exceed the entire 1995–2000 dot-com wave. Funding that equity supply requires selling existing holdings, and index rule changes make passive funds forced buyers, pressuring large-cap technology stocks.