“…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 must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“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
“…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
“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
“…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 comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“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

Showing 883 database articles primarily about GDP

Currently filtering by:

Remove GDP

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

For whatever topics you select (currently: "GDP", "Business Cycle", "Financial Markets", "Growth", "Housing", "Inflation", "Savings Glut/Trade Deficit", "Trade (not deficits)"):

Include articles that mention these topics 1435

Only articles primarily about these topics 883

Global Imbalances, Tariffs, and Industrial Policy

Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Gene Kindberg-Hanlon, Manasa Patnam, Lorenzo Rotunno, et al. Journal of Economic Perspectives

Date Posted:: August 5, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Industrial policy that stimulates exports also raises domestic spending. To generate a current-account surplus, it must be paired with forced saving, financial repression, or related features of the Chinese model.

Consider the example of policy directives to boost tradable output through the use of quantity targets. [This] creates a lopsided economy, resulting in a shortage of nontradable goods. To restore balance, the price of domestic nontradable goods would rise, increasing the overall price level and appreciating the real exchange rate, as the model-based simulations in Figure 9 show. However, these side-effects of the policy can be reversed by suppressing consumption, for instance through forced saving policies. In this case, reduced aggregate demand contains the rapid rise in nontradable prices and overall inflation. A sufficient degree of consumption repression can fully reverse the fall in saving and appreciation of the real exchange rate that would otherwise occur, subdue the relative nontradable price increase, and turn the current account balance effect from negative to positive. A policy that would seek to appreciate the nominal exchange rate of surplus countries without a change in the underlying drivers of saving and investment would only result in stronger domestic deflationary pressures. In this sense, focusing on the nominal exchange rate alone risks overstating its ability to correct external imbalances without accompanying changes in domestic demand and saving.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Industrial policy that boosts tradable output without suppressing consumption generates nontradable goods shortages, driving domestic price levels higher and appreciating the real exchange rate, ultimately worsening the current account balance.
Consumption repression paired with tradable-sector expansion neutralizes inflationary pressure on nontradable prices, reverses real exchange rate appreciation, and shifts the current account balance from deficit to surplus.
Nominal exchange rate appreciation in surplus economies, absent changes in underlying saving and investment drivers, produces domestic deflationary pressure without correcting external imbalances.

World’s Unusually High Dollar Exposure Risks Fueling Selloff

Ruth Carson, Masaki Kondo, and Anya Andrianova Bloomberg

Date Posted:: September 3, 2026
Is Database:: Database

A Bloomberg analysis finds only 41% of global investors’ foreign-currency exposure is hedged in six major markets, the lowest level since 2015. Foreigners now hold almost $40T of American assets.

Sift through the filings of pension funds and insurers around the world and one thing stands out: some of the biggest holders of US assets have little protection against a weaker dollar, leaving the currency at risk of steeper declines if sentiment suddenly turns. Across markets [Canada, Denmark, Australia, Taiwan, Japan and Finland for which data is available] investors hedged just 41% of their foreign-currency exposure as of June 30 — the lowest since at least 2015. While not a complete picture, it offers a glimpse into how the sudden rush last year to hedge against dollar losses triggered by President Donald Trump’s global tariff rollout has faded as the US currency slowly stabilized.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Global institutional investors hedged just 41% of their foreign-currency exposure as of June 30—the lowest share since at least 2015—leaving dollar-denominated assets acutely vulnerable to a sentiment-driven selloff.
The retreat from peak hedging activity reflects fading demand for dollar-loss protection after the U.S. currency stabilized following the tariff-driven shock, compressing a key buffer against renewed depreciation.

Public to Private Equity in the United States: A Long-Term Look

Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan Morgan Stanley

Date Posted:: September 2, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Btw the mid-90s and 2018, 62% of global venture capital investments lost money, and more than half of the deals lost 50–100% of invested capital. Yet US VC returned ~40% higher mean wealth btw 1984 and 2020 than a parallel investment path in the S&P 500.

Exhibit 8 shows in excess of 31,000 observations of returns, measured as multiples of invested capital at the beginning of the period, for global venture capital deals. These results are from the mid-1990s to 2018. 62% lost money and more than one-half of all deals lost 50 to 100% of invested capital. The offset is that the tails are much fatter than those for buyouts or public equities. Public market equivalent (PME) is generally reflected as a ratio between private equity and public market returns. A ratio above 1 reveals relative outperformance and below 1 means underperformance. Here’s an example of how PME works. Say a fund drew $200 million from its investors in January 2021 and paid out $470 million in December 2025. An investor could have invested the $200 million in the S&P 500, which returned $392 million over the same period. The PME would be 1.2 ($470/$392). For venture funds, the average over [1984-2020] was about 1.4.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Across 31,000+ global venture capital deals from the mid-1990s to 2018, 62% lost money and more than half destroyed 50–100% of invested capital, yet fat-tailed winners generate returns sufficient to offset the majority of losses.
Harvard Business School professor Tom Nicholas finds venture capital return distributions mirror those of historical whaling voyages, where payoffs were determined by highly variable oil and whalebone yields — confirming that extreme skewness in risk capital is a durable structural feature, not a modern anomaly.

What Are U.S. Treasury Markets Really Telling Us? Part II

Hanno Lustig The Two Cents

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

Lustig presents a decomposition that attributes 156bp of the 254bp rise in the 10-year yield since March 2022 to an increase in the term premium, which he associates with the additional duration risk borne by investors as the Fed reduced its balance sheet.

I plot a decomposition of the increase in the 10-year yield into a term premium component and a future short rate component. According to this measure, a big chunk —1.56 pps (or nearly 2/3 rds)— of the 2.54 pps increase in the 10-year yield since March 2022 is actually due to an increase in the term premium. That premium (the red line in the figure) turned negative around 2015, and [when] it bottomed out in 2020, yields (black line) were trading 135 bps below the path of future short rates (blue line). That’s not entirely surprising: The Fed was absorbing a large share of Treasury issuance at the long end of the yield curve —as well as MBS issuance— effectively removing a great deal of interest rate risk from the market.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Term premium accounts for 1.56 percentage points — nearly two-thirds — of the 2.54-point rise in the 10-year Treasury yield since March 2022, dwarfing the 98-basis-point contribution from rising expected short rates.
The term premium bottomed at -1.355% in 2020, when Fed absorption of long-end Treasury and MBS issuance stripped duration risk from the market and pushed yields 135 basis points below the expected path of short rates.
The term premium’s steady climb since 2022 signals that investors now demand compensation for bearing interest rate risk rather than paying for the privilege, reversing a multi-year structural distortion created by quantitative easing.

Is the AI Buildout Pushing Up Yields?

Robin Brooks Robin Brooks Substack

Date Posted:: August 27, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Brooks argues, “The AI buildout isn’t why government bond yields are rising,” noting the US non-financial corporate sector was a net saver as of Q1 2026, which suggests government deficit spending is driving up long yields.

The chart shows quarterly data for the US saving-investment balance going back to 1990. This is an identity that apportions the current account balance into net saving in various sectors of the economy. Households tend to be net savers, as is the financial sector and non-financial corporates. The government tends to be a net borrower. The last time we had a lot of excitement about technological innovation and higher productivity growth was in the “IT bubble” of the early 2000s, which saw non-financial corporates flip from being net savers to borrowers, i.e. the capex buildout at the time was very large and - for a few years - accounted for the entire current account deficit. Nothing like that’s happening now. It’s government dissaving, i.e. the budget deficit, that’s eating up resources, while the non-financial corporate sector stayed a net saver in data through the first quarter of this year.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Government dissaving—not corporate capital expenditure—is the primary driver of U.S. domestic savings consumption and current account deterioration.

Bessent Bounce Starts to Emerge in Long Bond Market Metrics

Greg Ritchie and Elizabeth Stanton Bloomberg

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

Modest compression of the spreads between Treasury yields and synthetic “swap” securities (~5.5bp for the 30 year and ~3bp for the 10 year) suggest Bessent’s Treasury purchase program has had a degree of success at lowering long-term government yields.

Since Bessent’s announcement, Treasuries have outperformed equivalent-maturity swaps, narrowing the 30-year spread to the smallest since February. Swaps are popular with some investors as an alternative to owning bonds; the gap between [swap rates] and US government yields [gauges] how willing [investors] are to hold Treasuries instead. The 10-year swap spread has compressed too, with the gap three basis points smaller at around 38 basis points. Still, the recent drop has only dented a years-long rise in long-term US government borrowing costs. The 10-year US yield inched up 3bp to 4.66% after touching 4.75% last week. “While conducting buybacks at the long end of the yield curve may technically decrease yields, higher structural US budget deficits, which [require] a significant supply of Treasuries to finance the US debt, [are] not changing anytime soon,” said Libby Cantrill, head of public policy at Pimco.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Treasury Secretary Bessent’s appointment triggered a long-bond rally, narrowing the 30-year swap spread to its tightest level since February and compressing the 10-year swap spread by 3 bps to ~38 bps.
The 10-year U.S. yield remains elevated at 4.66%, just 9 bps below last week’s 4.75% peak, as Bessent’s appointment has only dented a years-long structural rise in long-term borrowing costs.
Pimco’s Libby Cantrill argues that long-end Treasury buybacks may technically suppress yields but leave the underlying driver — structural U.S. budget deficits requiring sustained heavy issuance — entirely unchanged.

The United States and Its Creditors: Assessing Foreign Demand for U.S. Assets

Anusha Chari and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti Brookings Institution

Date Posted:: August 25, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The composition of foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury debt has shifted sharply from official to private investors over the past two decades. Foreign private investors now hold $6.7T in Treasuries, vastly exceeding the $3.9T held by foreign official institutions.

Figure 5 shows a large shift in foreign holdings of US Treasurys: a diminishing role for official investors, who accounted for the predominant share in 2008, offset by a rising role for private investors. Figure 6 shows net issuance and purchases of U.S. Treasury securities during the past 25 years. The boom in net issuance during and after the COVID pandemic is particularly striking, even after controlling for the net purchases by the Fed which reduce net market supply. Foreign net purchases show a notable shift toward private purchases relative to the 2000s. As a result, foreign private holdings of U.S. Treasury securities in mid-2025 ($6.7 trillion, including the Cayman Islands correction) vastly exceed official holdings of $3.9 trillion.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Foreign private holdings of U.S. Treasury securities ($6.7 trillion) now exceed official holdings ($3.9 trillion) by 1.7x, reversing the official-investor dominance that characterized the pre-2008 era.
The U.S. creditor base has shifted decisively toward market-sensitive private investors since 2008, replacing the official-sector dominance that once provided more stable, policy-driven demand for Treasuries.

Industrial policy that stimulates exports also raises domestic spending. To generate a current-account surplus, it must be paired with forced saving, financial repression, or related features of the Chinese model.

Does industrial policy address external imbalances without changing domestic demand?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

A Bloomberg analysis finds only 41% of global investors’ foreign-currency exposure is hedged in six major markets, the lowest level since 2015. Foreigners now hold almost $40T of American assets.

Are unhedged dollar positions setting up a market crash?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Btw the mid-90s and 2018, 62% of global venture capital investments lost money, and more than half of the deals lost 50–100% of invested capital. Yet US VC returned ~40% higher mean wealth btw 1984 and 2020 than a parallel investment path in the S&P 500.

Does venture capital's extreme inequality in returns justify its economic role?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Lustig presents a decomposition that attributes 156bp of the 254bp rise in the 10-year yield since March 2022 to an increase in the term premium, which he associates with the additional duration risk borne by investors as the Fed reduced its balance sheet.

Is the Treasury market pricing structural change or temporary Fed policy reversal?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Brooks argues, “The AI buildout isn’t why government bond yields are rising,” noting the US non-financial corporate sector was a net saver as of Q1 2026, which suggests government deficit spending is driving up long yields.

Does massive technology investment shift corporations from savers to borrowers?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Modest compression of the spreads between Treasury yields and synthetic “swap” securities (~5.5bp for the 30 year and ~3bp for the 10 year) suggest Bessent’s Treasury purchase program has had a degree of success at lowering long-term government yields.

Are investors returning to long-term government bonds?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

The composition of foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury debt has shifted sharply from official to private investors over the past two decades. Foreign private investors now hold $6.7T in Treasuries, vastly exceeding the $3.9T held by foreign official institutions.

Are foreign private investors replacing governments as holders of U.S. debt?

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