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
  • “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
  • “…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 represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…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 should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Net US investment has fallen from roughly 40% of gross investment in the 1970s to about 25% in the past decade, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment now just replaces depreciating capital. The author attributes this gap to modern investment being more information-technology-related, which depreciates faster and requires more frequent replacement.

Timothy Taylor Conversable Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.

Why does less of US gross investment add net capital?

Core argument: US net investment has run at about 25% of gross investment over the past decade, down from roughly 40% in the 1970s, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciated capital.

The figure divides net investment by gross investment. Back in the 1970s, net investment was often around 40% of gross investment, but the share has been slumping over time. For the last decade or so, net investment has been about 25% of the gross–that is, about three-quarters of gross investment is just making up for depreciation of the pre-existing capital stock. The likely reason for the growing gap between gross and net investment is that modern investment is more likely to be related to information technology [which] depreciates more rapidly and thus needs to be replaced and updated more often. If we want the average US worker to be using a greater amount of capital on the job–which was one of the key drivers of rising labor productivity in the past–it now takes a bigger rise in gross investment to lead to a given rise in net investment.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US net investment has run at about 25% of gross investment over the past decade, down from roughly 40% in the 1970s, meaning about three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciated capital.
  2. The likely reason for the widening gap between gross and net US investment is that modern investment is more tied to information technology, which depreciates more rapidly and must be replaced and updated more often.
  3. Raising the capital used by the average US worker—a key driver of past labor productivity growth—now requires a larger rise in gross investment to achieve a given rise in net investment.

Related Articles:

  • US Stock Market To Stop Shrinking For First Time In 23 Years — Goldman Sachs estimates that net supply of US equity — new shares issued less shares removed by buybacks and take-privates — will be roughly flat in 2026 after being negative since 2003, with a larger influx expected in 2027 as lock-up periods on this year's initial public offerings expire.
  • Capital Is Making a Comeback — Tangible investment in property, factories and equipment fell from 12.5% to 8.5% of private gross domestic product, while intangible investment in intellectual property, software and process knowledge rose from about 11.5% to 16.75%. The author argues demand for tangible capital investment will now have to rise.
  • The Transition to a Higher Cost of Capital — Bond yields near 4.5% sit below the 5.5% short-term interest rate, leaving little risk premium, and those yields have been enough to draw buyers back toward normal bond holdings. The author argues yields still need to rise to a sustainable cost of capital given structurally higher fiscal and inflationary spending.
Showing 96 database articles primarily about Investment