Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “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
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…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
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…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
  • “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
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 520
  • Primary focus 253
For whatever topics you select (currently: Financial Markets):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Europe’s Financial Sector is a Drag

AI Summary. Europe's fragmented financial sector struggles to supply enough capital and liquidity to support European companies and economic growth, with the gap between US and European financial sectors widening since the 2008-2009 crisis. The total market value of European banks fell from $2.7tn to $1.4tn, while US bank market value rose from $1.6tn to $2.6tn.

Rebecca Patterson Financial Times
Date Posted:
February 2, 2024

Between 2009-23 the S&P 500 saw gains 5x of the Euro Stoxx 50 in local currency terms. Rebecca Patterson argues Europe’s financial sector is dragging down economic growth by failing to “pump sufficient capital and liquidity” into European firms.

Is Europe's fragmented financial sector holding back its economic growth?

Core argument: The total market capitalisation of European banks, including the UK and Switzerland, fell from $2.7tn in 2007 to $1.4tn by 2021, according to a study by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.

Europe’s relatively narrow and fragmented financial industry is like a weak financial heart that struggles to pump sufficient capital and liquidity to support healthy European companies and economic growth. The gap between US and European financial sectors has widened steadily since the 2008-2009 crisis, after which banking regulations were notably tightened. Indeed, the total market capitalisation of European banks (including the UK and Switzerland) fell from $2.7tn in 2007 to $1.4tn by 2021, according to a recent study by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, a think-tank. Europe’s decline is even more striking when compared with the increase in US bank market capitalisation: from $1.6tn to $2.6tn.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The total market capitalisation of European banks, including the UK and Switzerland, fell from $2.7tn in 2007 to $1.4tn by 2021, according to a study by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.
  2. US bank market capitalisation rose from $1.6tn to $2.6tn, according to the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum study, contrasting with the decline in Europe.
  3. Europe's narrow and fragmented financial industry struggles to supply sufficient capital and liquidity to support European companies and economic growth, with the gap versus the US widening steadily since the 2008–2009 crisis, after which banking regulations were tightened.

Related Articles:

  • How The US Is Crushing Europe’s Domestic Exchanges — US equities make up nearly 70% of the MSCI World index, and its 10 largest constituents — all US companies — exceed the combined market capitalization of Japan, the UK, France, Canada, and Germany. That depth and liquidity attracts new listings from both US and overseas issuers.
  • Europe Has Fallen Behind America and the Gap is Growing — The EU economy was somewhat larger than the US in 2008 ($16.2tn versus $14.7tn), but by 2022 the US had grown to $25tn while the EU and UK combined reached only $19.8tn. The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency allows the US to finance its ambitions without unsettling markets.
  • From Strength To Strength — The US produced $25.5tn in GDP, about 25% of the world total—roughly its 1990 share—while China's share stands at 18%; the US share of the G7's nominal GDP rose from 40% in 1990 to 58%. Income per person is now about 30% above western Europe and 54% above Japan, adjusted for purchasing power.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
Previous articleFebruary 2, 2024Europe Regulates Its Way to Last PlaceEuropean firms with at least $1B in revenue spent 3.7% of revenue on R&D vs. 6.8% for comparable US firms, and earned 14% ROIC vs. 17.8% for US firms. @greg_ip points to European competition policy as a driver.Next articleFebruary 2, 2024Government Interest Payments Have Doubled since 2021Torsten Sløk @apolloglobal notes since 2021 US government interest payments have doubled to over $700B annually, driven by higher interest rates and debt levels.
Showing 253 database articles primarily about Financial Markets
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove 'Database'

The Stock Market’s Read On The Midterms, In Its Winners And Losers

AI Summary. Stocks rose broadly after a sweeping Democratic win in midterm elections, with health insurers tied to the Affordable Care Act and solar companies gaining while data-center firms and companies linked to Trump and Musk fell. The move reflects the increment beyond already-priced-in Democratic victories, from greater certainty and a larger-than-expected margin.

Jason Furman Econvitals
Date Posted:
November 5, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Furman notes that between election day and Wednesday’s close there were broad-based gains for the solar sector and health companies, particularly those with close ties to the ACA, even though substantial, while less dramatic, Democratic victories in the House and Senate were already priced in. [Note: Today saw technology stocks plunge, pushing the S&P 500 down ~4% and the Nasdaq down ~5%]. 

How do stock winners and losers reveal expected election policy impacts?

Core argument: The broader stock market rallied the day after Democrats won a sweeping victory in the midterm elections, and the composition of winners and losers indicates what the market expects the policy impact to be.

The broader stock market rallied the day after Democrats won a sweeping victory in the midterm elections. Perhaps more interesting, and more telling, was the composition, which shows what the market thinks the policy impact of the election will be: health companies (especially ones like Centene, with close ties to the Affordable Care Act) and solar companies were up, while data-center companies and Trump- and Musk-related companies were down. And remember, Democratic victories were already priced in, so this is just the additional increment from greater certainty as well as the larger-than-expected magnitude. 

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The broader stock market rallied the day after Democrats won a sweeping victory in the midterm elections, and the composition of winners and losers indicates what the market expects the policy impact to be.
  2. Health companies with close ties to the Affordable Care Act, such as Centene, and solar companies rose after the midterms, while data-center companies and Trump- and Musk-related companies fell.
  3. Democratic victories were already priced into the stock market, so the post-election move reflects only the added increment from greater certainty and the larger-than-expected magnitude.

Related Articles:

  • Now You Can See Everything — Nearly every major local ballot measure opposing data centers won, putting an estimated 37.5 GW of planned capacity at risk of a pause and another 15 GW subject to conditions such as grid cost-sharing, water limits, and ended tax incentives. The 37 GW expected in 2027, 75% already under construction, is largely unaffected.
  • How Americans Voted in 2026 — Estimates of US voter behavior combine interviews with 26,706 voters nationally, re-interviews with more than 7,000 voters after they cast ballots, precinct- and county-level results, validated turnout for 44% of voters, and state voter registration files.
  • Califoreboding — A basket of 42 AI stocks accounts for 60%-80% of all S&P 500 earnings growth, price returns and capital spending, while 60% of S&P 500 stocks sit 20% or more below their highs and only 30% outperform the index. AI-related construction spending has risen 38%, the only positive trend as manufacturing, commercial real estate and residential construction decline.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
  • Politics

This Time Would Have To Be Very Different. Part II

AI Summary. Holding US corporate free cash flow at its record 15% share of gross value added and keeping valuation multiples fixed implies a real expected return of about 5.3%, below what US corporate capital has historically delivered. Earning the historical average would require that cash flow share to keep rising, a bet on capital gaining at labor's expense.

Hanno Lustig The Two Cents
Date Posted:
November 3, 2026
Is Database:
Database

If the free cash flow of the entire US corporate sector were to hold at its record ~15% share of corporate value added, corporations would return only ~5.3% over the next decade. To earn the historical mean return, FCF would have to keep rising, implying a structural transformation favoring capital at labor’s expense.

Do record corporate cash flows still imply below-average expected stock returns?

Core argument: Holding the multiple fixed, a 3.26% free cash flow yield plus the Survey of Professional Forecasters’ 4.58% projected nominal GDP growth and 2.5% inflation implies a real expected return of roughly 5.3% on US corporate debt plus equity.

At a CAPE of 40.7 US stocks look extremely expensive, and expected returns are low, especially compared to TIPS yields. Plugging in today’s numbers, you back out an expected real return of around 3% over the next decade, compared to a 10-year TIPS yield of 2.6%. Now, instead of an investor holding a single share, we could look at an investor who owns the entire corporate sector, all equity, bonds, and other liabilities. This investor acquired a claim to FCF, the total amount of cash that can be paid out to its owners, including bondholders: gross corporate value added left after paying workers, the government, and investment expenditure. This FCF is now about 15% of corporate value added. Earnings minus FCF is net investment; corporations have invested less. Its FCF yield is 3.26%, vs. 3.21% since 1952. That delivers an approximate real expected return of 5.3%, below what US corporate capital has historically delivered.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Holding the multiple fixed, a 3.26% free cash flow yield plus the Survey of Professional Forecasters’ 4.58% projected nominal GDP growth and 2.5% inflation implies a real expected return of roughly 5.3% on US corporate debt plus equity.
  2. The 5.3% real return assumes free cash flow stays at its record 15% of gross value added indefinitely, and still falls below what US corporate capital has historically delivered.
  3. Earning the historical average return requires the free cash flow share of value added to keep climbing, a bet on a structural transformation of US capitalism favoring capital at the expense of labor.

Related Articles:

  • This Time Would Have To Be Very Different — The cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 stands at 40.7, implying an earnings yield of 2.46% and, combined with an estimated 1.8% annual real per-share earnings growth, a real expected return near 3% a year. Against a 2.75% inflation-protected 10-year Treasury yield, that leaves an equity premium of roughly 25 basis points, assuming the elevated multiple holds.
  • 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 Macroeconomic Perspective on Stock Market Valuation Ratios — The authors argue that a decline in labor's share of US corporate value added, combined with weak corporate investment, mechanically raises valuation-to-earnings ratios even without changes in expected returns or growth. They find corporate enterprise value rose alongside an equal-sized increase in free cash flow's share of value added.
  • Reconciling Macroeconomics and Finance for the U.S. Corporate Sector: 1929 to Present — Using integrated U.S. macroeconomic and financial accounts, the authors find that fluctuations in expected cash flows to corporate owners, rather than expected rates of return, have been the dominant driver of swings in U.S. corporate market valuations. They attribute most valuation fluctuations to changes in the share of corporate output flowing to owners as pure rent.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP

This Time Would Have To Be Very Different

AI Summary. The cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 stands at 40.7, implying an earnings yield of 2.46% and, combined with an estimated 1.8% annual real per-share earnings growth, a real expected return near 3% a year. Against a 2.75% inflation-protected 10-year Treasury yield, that leaves an equity premium of roughly 25 basis points, assuming the elevated multiple holds.

Hanno Lustig The Two Cents
Date Posted:
October 26, 2026
Is Database:
Database

At 40.7, CAPE is nearing its December 1999 peak of 44.2. For the S&P 500 to beat TIPS over the next decade, today’s near-record P/E multiple must persist for ten years, or real earnings must grow more than 5.8% a year—a pace exceeded in only two decades since 1880: the 1920s and 2010s.

How much do stock valuations offer over inflation-protected Treasuries?

Core argument: The S&P 500’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio stands at 40.7, close to an all-time high, implying an earnings yield of just 2.46% for buyers of the index.

The CAPE is currently trading at 40.7, which is close to an all-time high. You’re paying close to 41 times annual earnings when you buy the S&P 500. The implied earnings yield is only 2.46%. According to AQR, a reasonable estimate for real earnings growth (on a per share basis) is 1.8% per annum. If you plug in today’s numbers, you end up with a real expected return of around 3% per year for U.S. equity. That’s a surprisingly low number. When you compare it to the 10-year TIPS yield of 2.75%, you’re left with a razor-thin equity premium. The stock market will only yield an extra 25 basis points per annum over the next, say, 10 years to compensate you for taking on equity risk. You might think this is a very conservative estimate, but it’s actually not, because we’re implicitly assuming that the CAPE stays at 40.7 over the next 10 years. That’s quite a lofty multiple. Even casual eyeball econometrics suggests that that’s not a great assumption, because the price-earnings ratio tends to revert back to its mean.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The S&P 500’s cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio stands at 40.7, close to an all-time high, implying an earnings yield of just 2.46% for buyers of the index.
  2. Combining the 2.46% earnings yield with AQR’s estimate of 1.8% annual real per-share earnings growth yields a real expected return of roughly 3% per year for U.S. equity.
  3. Against a 10-year TIPS yield of 2.75%, U.S. equities offer an equity premium of about 25 basis points per year, an estimate that assumes the CAPE stays at 40.7 for a decade despite the price-earnings ratio’s tendency to revert to its mean.

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.
  • One Hundred Years in the U.S. Stock Markets — Over a century, U.S. publicly traded stocks generated roughly $91tn in shareholder wealth enhancement, with returns strongly positively skewed and dominated by a relatively small number of high-performing firms. Because most possible outcomes fall below the mean in a skewed distribution, the authors argue financial planning should focus on median outcomes or the full distribution.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Circularity in AI Shows Up in Token Spending Too

AI Summary. Payment-data analysis finds 80% of the largest corporate AI spenders are venture-backed, versus 13% of the median spender, indicating that much token spending is funded by venture capital rather than earnings. If AI payoffs are slow, venture returns could suffer and a funding pullback could weaken demand for computing power.

Torsten Slok Apollo
Date Posted:
October 22, 2026
Is Database:
Database

According to Ramp data, 80% of firms in the top 1% of AI spending are VC-backed, compared with just 13% of firms at the median. This suggests that the largest purchasers of AI computing capacity rely heavily on venture capital rather than internally generated earnings.

Is venture capital funding most corporate AI token spending?

Core argument: Ramp data show 80% of the top 1% of AI spenders are venture-backed, versus 13% of the median spender, suggesting the largest buyers of compute are funding token spending with venture capital rather than organic earnings.

Ramp data show that 80% of the top 1% of AI spenders are VC-backed, compared with only 13% of the median spender, suggesting that the circularity seen among AI hyperscalers and model providers also extends to token spending, as the startups buying the most compute are paying for it with venture capital rather than organic earnings. If the AI payoff is slow to materialize or never arrives, VC returns would come under pressure, since the capital funding today’s token spending would have little to show for it, and a pullback in venture funding could in turn weaken demand for compute.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Ramp data show 80% of the top 1% of AI spenders are venture-backed, versus 13% of the median spender, suggesting the largest buyers of compute are funding token spending with venture capital rather than organic earnings.
  2. Ramp’s data on the venture backing of the heaviest AI spenders suggest the circularity seen among AI hyperscalers and model providers also extends to token spending.
  3. If the AI payoff is slow to materialize or never arrives, venture capital returns would come under pressure, and a pullback in venture funding could in turn weaken demand for compute.

Related Articles:

  • Slowing Token Spend Shows Compute Demand Isn’t Unlimited — Demand for computing power appears highly price-sensitive, with modest increases in token prices pushing buyers to cut usage or switch to cheap open-source alternatives, undercutting claims that demand is unlimited. Return on invested capital at the five largest cloud providers is declining as invested capital grows faster than the earnings it generates.
  • AI Capex, Required Revenues, And What’s Priced In The AI Trade — Goldman Sachs projects the largest US hyperscalers' capital spending reaches $1.2tn in 2027 and $1.4tn in 2028, with growth decelerating, and estimates they need roughly $300bn in annual AI revenues to break even. AI infrastructure stocks have de-rated, with hyperscalers at their smallest recorded premium to the median S&P 500 company.
  • 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.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Revenue Per Worker Is Up. Are Firms Getting a Larger Share?

AI Summary. Publicly listed firms' profit margins were roughly flat through the 2010s, with gross margins growing about 0.4% a year from 2010 to 2019, then turned up: average gross margins rose from about 34% of sales in 2019 to 37% in 2025, and operating margins from 16% to 18%.

Jeremy Pearce Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
October 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Nonfarm business output per hour grew 2.2% annually between 2019 and 2025, up from 1% in 2010–19. Among public firms, growth in real revenue per worker accelerated from 0.7% to 2.2%. Operating margins rose from 16% to 18% of sales (2.4% annual growth).

Have corporate profit margins risen after a flat decade?

Core argument: Average operating margins rose from about 16% of sales in 2019 to 18% in 2025, growth of 2.4% a year, after being roughly flat through the 2010s.

A profit margin is profit divided by sales: the share of each sales dollar the firm keeps after paying its costs. The gross margin subtracts the direct cost of production (cost of goods sold), while the operating margin also subtracts overhead (selling, general, and administrative expense, which in Compustat typically includes R&D). If productivity gains were flowing to firms’ profits, margins should show it. Through the 2010s margins were flat: gross margins grew about 0.4% a year from 2010 to 2019, and operating margins were roughly flat. Both then turned up: on average, gross margins went from about 34% of sales in 2019 to 37% in 2025 (1.3% growth per year), and operating margins from 16% to 18% (2.4% growth per year). Part of the gains surfaced with wider profit margins: on a reasonable baseline, the operating margin rose over 2% a year from 2019 to 2025.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Average operating margins rose from about 16% of sales in 2019 to 18% in 2025, growth of 2.4% a year, after being roughly flat through the 2010s.
  2. Average gross margins increased from about 34% of sales in 2019 to 37% in 2025, growth of 1.3% a year, up from about 0.4% a year over 2010–2019.
  3. On a reasonable baseline, the operating margin rose over 2% a year from 2019 to 2025, indicating part of the productivity gains surfaced as wider profit margins.

Related Articles:

  • Higher Utilisation Explains The Recent Surge In Productivity Growth — 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Investment

Earnings Will Be Spectacular. It May Not Be Enough

AI Summary. Corporate profit margins, long regarded as one of the economy's most reliably mean-reverting series, have risen continuously so far this century. Measured through the national income accounts used in calculating GDP, profits now take a larger share of the economy than on the eve of the 1929 crash.

John Authers Bloomberg
Date Posted:
October 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Since 2000, post-tax corporate profits as a share of GDP have trended upward across cyclical setbacks and are now near an all time high, above their 1929 level.

Have corporate profit margins stopped reverting to the mean?

Core argument: Corporate profits measured in the National Income and Product Accounts take a larger share of the U.S. economy than on the eve of the 1929 Great Crash.

Throughout the 20th century, profit margins were regarded as one of the purest mean-reverting series in the economy. So far this century, however, margins have done nothing but rise. Measured with the National Income and Product Accounts, part of the GDP calculation, profits are currently taking a bigger share of the economy even than on the eve of the Great Crash in 1929. The series comes with a lag, so we can assume the profit share on this basis is comfortably at a record by now.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Corporate profits measured in the National Income and Product Accounts take a larger share of the U.S. economy than on the eve of the 1929 Great Crash.
  2. Profit margins were regarded throughout the 20th century as one of the purest mean-reverting series in the economy, yet so far this century they have done nothing but rise.
  3. The National Income and Product Accounts profits series comes with a lag, so the profit share on this basis can be assumed to be comfortably at a record.

Related Articles:

  • US Focus: The Effect Of Soaring Profits — US nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national accounts grew 23% over the past year, a pace not seen outside post-recession spikes since the mid-2000s. Wider margins were the key driver, as domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added, pushing margins near all-time highs while the labor share hit new lows.
  • The Post‑COVID Decline in the Labor Share — The share of US national income paid to workers fell 1.6 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, reaching a post-war low. The authors find this decline stems mainly from changes within industries rather than shifts in activity across sectors, following cyclical patterns seen in earlier recessions.
  • Are US Corporate Profit Margins Too High? — US after-tax non-financial corporate profit margins remain elevated by historical standards, estimated at 7.6% versus a post-1949 high of 8.2%, while employee pay as a share of non-financial corporate gross value added has fallen from 66% to 56%. One argument holds that subdued demographic growth leads companies to prioritize maximizing margins over expanding capacity.
  • Financial Markets
  • GDP
  • Productivity
  • Workforce
    • Inequality
    • Wages/Income
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms