“…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 represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…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
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

For whatever topics you select (currently: "Productivity", "Cronyism", "Incentives/Risk-Taking", "Innovation/Research", "Institutional Capabilities", "Intangibles", "Investment", "Startups", "Workforce Reorganization"):

Include articles that mention these topics 903

Only articles primarily about these topics 492

The Rise of Cloud Computing: Minding Your P's, Q's and K's

David Byrne National Bureau of Economic Research

Date Posted:: January 2, 2019
Is Database:: Database

Cloud computing price declines not fully captured in GDP, adjusting for this increases average annual GDP growth rate by 2% from 2007-2015.

The rapid expansion of cloud computing, particularly through services like AWS, has led to significant price declines in compute, database, and storage services, with rates accelerating post-2014. Despite these massive price falls, GDP figures have not fully captured the economic impact, as cloud services are often intermediate inputs and difficult to track in the U.S. statistical system. Adjusting for these price declines and own-account investments in IT equipment could increase the average annual GDP growth rate by 2% from 2007-2015. This adjustment would also add three basis points per year to nominal GDP growth during this period, highlighting a potential understatement in official economic measures due to the rise of cloud computing.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Adjusting for cloud computing price declines and own-account investment in IT equipment could raise the average annual GDP growth rate by 2% over 2007–2015 and add three basis points per year to nominal GDP growth.
Cloud computing services such as AWS have brought price declines in compute, database, and storage services, with the rate of decline accelerating after 2014.
U.S. GDP figures have not fully captured cloud computing's economic impact because cloud services are often intermediate inputs that are difficult to track in the U.S. statistical system.

terrific new Corrado, using AWS data finds massive falls in prices not being captured by GDP

after his adjustment"....boost the average annual growth rate during 2007-2015 by roughly 2 percentage points compared with official estimates. For nominal GDP growth, including this own-account investment would add three basis points per year to the growth rate during this period..."

David Byrne, Carol Corrado, Daniel E. Sichel, "The Rise of Cloud Computing: Minding Your P's, Q's and K's," National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2018, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25188

"....Cloud computing—computing done on an off-site network of resources accessed through the Internet—is revolutionizing how computing services are used. However, because cloud is so new and it largely is an intermediate input to other industries, it is difficult to track in the U.S. statistical system. Moreover, there is a paucity of systematic information on the prices of cloud services. To begin filling this gap, this paper does three things. First, we define the different segments of cloud computing and document its explosive expansion. Second, we develop new hedonic prices indexes for cloud services based on quarterly data for compute, database, and storage services offered by Amazon Web Services (AWS) from 2009 to 2016.....Our basic finding is that prices for cloud services have fallen rapidly and that the use of the cloud has grown tremendously as has investment in the related infrastructure of IT equipment and software. For our analysis of prices, we assembled a unique data set with quarterly data on prices and characteristics for cloud services offered by the largest provider, Amazon Web Services (AWS), since the first quarter of 2009 when AWS began posting prices on the Internet. The data cover AWS’ basic compute, database, and storage products..... These indexes fall rapidly over the sample period, with quickening (and double digit) rates of decline for all three products starting at the beginning of 2014..... For AWS, the price for their compute product fell at an average rate of about 7 percent during 2000-2016. Price declines were slower before 2014 and more rapid starting in the beginning of 2014. Interestingly, 2014 is the year when Microsoft and Google began posting prices for their cloud offerings on the Internet. We suspect that AWS’ large price declines were a response to that change in the competitive environment. For AWS’ database product, prices fell at an average rate of more than 11 percent during 2009-16. Here too, prices fell relatively modestly until the beginning of 2014, after which they fell at an average rate of more that 22 percent through the end of 2016. AWS’ storage product followed a similar pattern, with prices falling at an average annual rate of about 17 percent during 2009-2016 and even faster declines starting in 2014.....Finally, we highlight the puzzle of why investment in IT equipment in the NIPAs has been so weak while capital expenditures have exploded for IT equipment associated with cloud infrastructure. We suggest that cloud service providers are undertaking large amounts of own-account investment in IT equipment and that some of this investment may not be captured in GDP..... As seen in figure 9, nominal IT equipment and software investment including our estimate of own-account would be $58 billion higher in 2015 than in the official estimates, amounting to 0.32 percent of GDP. For nominal investment in IT equipment, adding this own-account investment would boost the average annual growth rate during 2007-2015 by roughly 2 percentage points compared with official estimates. For nominal GDP growth, including this own-account investment would add three basis points per year to the growth rate during this period..... We find that cloud computing has exploded. By available measures, the quantity of cloud activity has grown extremely rapidly as has associated capital investment. At the same time, prices of basic cloud services have fallen rapidly since 2009, based on a unique dataset we assembled. However, because cloud is so new and so much of it is intermediate input, it is challenging to track in the statistical system, and the available data do not distinguish between cloud-based and traditional services, whether services are purchased or produced internally, or generated at the “edge.” We highlight one area where real GDP may be understated by a noticeable amount as a result of changes in the economy related to the rise of cloud computing...."

would note that while it might be missing in GDP Mr. Market seems to be pricing it into AMZN/MSFT value versus peer firms not in the space

US Labor Productivity Increases at Fastest Pace in a Year

Julia Fanzeres Bloomberg

Date Posted:: November 5, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Nonfarm business productivity grew at a 3.6% annualized rate in Q3, the fastest pace in a year. Real hourly compensation rose 1.1%, while the labor share fell to 53%, the lowest in data going back to 1947.

US labor productivity accelerated in the third quarter at the fastest pace in a year, suggesting a capital spending boom is translating into greater efficiency at a time when input costs have soared. Productivity, or nonfarm business output per hour, increased at a 3.6% annualized rate after an upwardly revised 2.1% pace in the prior quarter, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed Thursday. Unit labor costs — what businesses pay employees to produce one unit of output — fell 0.7%, the first decline since the second quarter of 2025.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

US nonfarm business output per hour rose at a 3.6% annualized rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace in a year, following an upwardly revised 2.1% pace in the prior quarter, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Unit labor costs, what businesses pay employees to produce one unit of output, fell 0.7% in the third quarter, the first decline since the second quarter of 2025.
The third-quarter productivity acceleration suggests a capital spending boom is translating into greater efficiency at a time when input costs have soared.

Change Is Accelerating Because It’s All Interconnected

Greg Jensen Bridgewater Associates

Date Posted:: October 30, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Bridgewater estimates that AI equities are pricing in ~3.5% annual productivity growth, while real growth and productivity implied by breakeven earnings in the broader stock market are slightly below current levels. They conclude: “Either AI stocks or broader macro markets are very meaningfully mispriced.”

Different markets are pricing very different futures; most are far from pricing an unrecognizable world. The AI boom has contributed tens of trillions of dollars of market cap in AI companies. As in any gold rush, trillions of dollars of “picks and shovels” only make sense if a great deal of gold (profits) is found. The pricing of a broader universe of AI companies tells us something about the scale of transformation that is discounted. If we calculate the incremental revenue required to sustain the valuation of AI companies and estimate how much of that can be earned by cannibalizing the revenue of existing companies, we can back out a productivity boost required to generate the rest of the incremental revenues. Today, we estimate that AI equities are discounting something like 3.5% annual productivity growth. That’s more than we estimate is needed for the US to make its debts sustainable. Across a reasonable range of assumptions, we assess AI stocks to be pricing trend nominal GDP growth well above the recent past. By contrast, consensus estimates and broader markets imply a world that looks more like the recent past. Making sense of the pricing in AI stocks requires a boom in productivity and growth. Consensus estimates for growth and productivity (from economist and Fed estimates) are slightly lower than current measures, as are rates of real growth and productivity implied by breakeven earnings in the broader stock market.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

AI equities are priced for roughly 3.5% annual productivity growth, more than is estimated as needed to make US debts sustainable, and across a reasonable range of assumptions imply trend nominal GDP growth well above the recent past.
Consensus growth and productivity estimates from economists and the Fed, along with real growth and productivity implied by breakeven earnings in the broader stock market, sit slightly below current measures, describing a world resembling the recent past.
Either AI stocks or broader macro markets are very meaningfully mispriced, since the AI boom has added tens of trillions of dollars of market cap that only makes sense if a great deal of profit is found.

No Signs of AI Payoff Outside the Tech Sector

Torsten Slok Apollo

Date Posted:: October 26, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Citing flat revenue per worker, and profit margin growth for the S&P 493, Slok argues that so far, AI’s diffusion through the economy has delivered “zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech.”

With no impact on the bottom line, mainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins. VC-backed companies are spending more and more on tokens, but mainstream corporate America does not need the latest model and is unwilling to pay for it. As long as agentic AI and token spending are confined to a small part of the economy, the macroeconomic effects of AI will be very limited. The question looking ahead is whether, even as models become commoditized, mainstream corporate America can turn increasingly cheap intelligence into higher revenue growth and higher profit margins. That may be harder than it sounds. The AI story will be decided in the S&P 493, not the Mag 7, and so far, there is no evidence that revenue growth or margins are improving outside the tech sector.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Revenue per worker and profit margins are rising for the Magnificent 7 but flat for the S&P 493, with no signs of AI boosting productivity growth or delivering financial payoff outside the tech sector.
Mainstream corporate America is pulling back from AI and treating token spending as a cost center that weighs on margins, while VC-backed companies spend increasingly more on tokens.
The macroeconomic effects of AI will remain very limited as long as agentic AI and token spending stay confined to a small part of the economy.

How Much Revenue Does The AI Buildout Need In 2030?

William Gildea and Azeem Azhar Exponential View

Date Posted:: October 1, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Beginning with capex projections, Gildea/Azhar derive for their high-growth case a $1.3T annual AI-infrastructure revenue hurdle for 2030. This covers $771B of depreciation and operating costs, plus a 15% return on $3.5T of net capital in service.

We estimate AI CapEx to be $560B in 2026, 64% of the total declared by the hyperscalers. Unfinished facilities can’t generate revenue, so the investment bill and the productive asset base will grow at different speeds. [In the high investment case], by 2030 we see $3.5T of net AI capital in service. The largest component [of the revenue hurdle] is the $555B in compute depreciation. We model lifespans at the current 5-6 years. Shell depreciation and OpEx combined contribute about a further $216B to the required revenue hurdle. [Adding a 15% return on net capital brings required annual infrastructure revenue to $1.3T]. Reaching the $1.3T hurdle would represent 7.4x growth (59% CAGR) from today’s annualized revenues. For its customers to earn 30-50% gross margins, downstream revenues need to be $1.9-2.6T. [Editor’s note: Van Nieuwerburgh’s far larger figure of $3.7T covers mature revenues from projects completed through 2032, using commissioning capital and a 50% infrastructure operating cash-flow margin. This estimate instead charges depreciation and operating costs plus 15% on net capital in service in 2030. Different horizons and cost conventions prevent a direct comparison. Van Nieuwerburgh also has a much higher capex estimate.]

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

In a high investment case with $3.5tn of net AI capital in service, the authors estimate AI infrastructure must generate $1.3tn of annual revenue by 2030, requiring 7.4x growth (59% CAGR) from today’s annualized revenues.
Compute depreciation of $555bn, modeled on 5-6 year lifespans, is the largest component of the 2030 revenue hurdle, with shell depreciation and operating expenses adding about $216bn and a 15% return on net capital completing the $1.3tn total.

AI and Entrepreneurship: What is Really Happening?

Nathan Goldschlag Economic Innovation Group

Date Posted:: September 30, 2026
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.”

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

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.
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.
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.

Tech's Trillion-Dollar Internal Inconsistency

Torsten Sløk Apollo

Date Posted:: September 29, 2026
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.”

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

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.
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.
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.

Cloud computing price declines not fully captured in GDP, adjusting for this increases average annual GDP growth rate by 2% from 2007-2015.

Do official statistics understate real GDP growth by missing falling cloud prices?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Nonfarm business productivity grew at a 3.6% annualized rate in Q3, the fastest pace in a year. Real hourly compensation rose 1.1%, while the labor share fell to 53%, the lowest in data going back to 1947.

Is a capital spending boom lifting worker productivity?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Do AI stock valuations and broader markets imply incompatible growth expectations?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Citing flat revenue per worker, and profit margin growth for the S&P 493, Slok argues that so far, AI’s diffusion through the economy has delivered “zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech.”

Is artificial intelligence boosting revenue and margins outside big tech?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Beginning with capex projections, Gildea/Azhar derive for their high-growth case a $1.3T annual AI-infrastructure revenue hurdle for 2030. This covers $771B of depreciation and operating costs, plus a 15% return on $3.5T of net capital in service.

How much annual revenue must AI infrastructure generate to justify investment?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

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?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

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?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI