Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “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
  • “…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 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
  • “…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 represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “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
  • “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
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 442
  • Primary focus 219
Showing 219 database articles primarily about Business Cycle
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Business Cycle
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,212 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Business Cycle):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth

Ernest Liu, Atif Mian and Amir Sufi Social Science Research Network
Date Posted:
February 25, 2019
Is Database:
Database

Low interest rates reduce business dynamism as market leaders gain share, while market followers cut investment to a greater degree than they do in the face of low rates.

Low interest rates reduce business dynamism as market leaders gain share, while market followers cut investment to a greater...
A reduction in long-term interest rates tends to make market structure less competitive within an industry, as market leaders increase their investment more than followers, widening the gap and increasing concentration. This dynamic results in a negative effect on growth in a low interest rate regime, overshadowing the traditional positive impact of lower rates. The model suggests an inverted-U relationship between growth and interest rates, with empirical evidence showing increased market concentration and persistent monopoly power. This mechanism may explain the global slowdown in productivity growth, which began before the Great Recession and persists today, challenging explanations based solely on cyclical forces or price stickiness. The theory posits low interest rates as a common global factor driving this productivity deceleration, supported by both aggregate time series and firm-level data.

"...The focus of this paper is on understanding how the production side of the economy responds to a reduction in long-term interest rates driven by consumer-side forces. The existing literature in growth either assumes no production-side response to declining interest rates, or a positive response driven by an increased incentive to invest in the face of a higher discounted present value of future profits. The point of departure from this literature lies in explicitly modeling competition within an industry and analyzing how lower interest rates effect the nature of competition. The model builds on the dynamic contests literature to show that in a fairly general set up and without relying on any financial or other forms of frictions, the effect of lower interest rates on growth in a low interest rate regime can be negative. A reduction in long-term interest rates tends to make market structure less competitive within an industry. The reason is that while both the leader and follower within an industry increase their investment in response to a reduction in interest rates, the increase in investment is always stronger for the leader. As a result, the gap between the leader and follower increases as interest rates decline, making an industry less competitive and more concentrated. When interest rates are already low, this negative effect of lower interest rates on industry competition tends to lower growth and overwhelms the traditional positive effect of lower interest rates on growth. This produces a hump-shaped inverted-U production-side relationship between growth and interest rates.The model delivers a distinctive upward sloping production-side curve in a low interest rate regime. We believe that this insight is empirically relevant and useful in understanding the slow-down in productivity growth in recent decades and the broader discussion regarding “secular stagnation.” The slowdown in productivity growth is global as it shows up in almost all advanced economies. The slowdown started well before the Great Recession, suggesting that cyclical forces related to the crisis are unlikely to be the trigger. And the slowdown in productivity is highly persistent, lasting well over a decade. The long-run pattern suggests that explanations relying on price stickiness or the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates are unlikely to be the complete explanation. This paper introduces the possibility of low interest rates as the common global “factor” that drives the slowdown in productivity growth. The mechanism that the theory postulates delivers a number of important predictions that are supported by empirical evidence. A reduction in long term interest rates increases market concentration and market power in the model. A fall in the interest rate also makes industry leadership and monopoly power more persistent. There is empirical support for these predictions in the data, both in aggregate time series as well as in firm-level panel data sets...."
Ernest Liu, Atif Mian and Amir Sufi, "Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth," Social Science Research Network, February 4, 2019, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm

  • Business Cycle
  • Productivity
    • Institutional Capabilities
    • Investment
Previous articleFebruary 25, 2019The Case for a Significant German Stimulus Is Now OverwhelmingGermany’s fiscal surplus as a share of GDP has been steadily increasing, reaching 1.7% in 2018, up from 1.2% in 2017. @Brad_Setser argues this growing surplus presents a compelling case for a significant fiscal stimulus.Next articleFebruary 25, 2019Work of the Past, Work of the FutureTechnological changes have disproportionately favored college-educated workers, exacerbating economic disparities & reducing opportunities for non-college workers in high-wage cities. @DavidAutor
Showing 218 database articles primarily about Business Cycle

3% vs. 60%

AI Summary. Direct lending represents roughly 3% of total U.S. household and business debt, a fraction of the 60% share mortgages held at the peak of the housing bubble.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
April 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Torsten Sløk notes the direct lending market is ~$2T or 3% of household and non-financial debt outstanding. To provide context, he shows that in 2006, on the eve of the crisis, mortgages accounted for ~60% of such debt.

Core argument: Direct lending represents a small but growing alternative to traditional bank financing for businesses and households.

The direct lending market is roughly $2 trillion, or about 3% of total debt outstanding for US households and businesses. By comparison, mortgages accounted for about 60% of total household and corporate debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Direct lending represents a small but growing alternative to traditional bank financing for businesses and households.
  2. The mortgage market’s dominance has shifted dramatically since the 2006 housing peak, reducing systemic risk concentration.
  3. Non-bank lenders now capture meaningful market share in credit provision across the economy.

Related Articles:

  • JPMorgan Marking Down Loan Portfolios Of Private Credit Groups — JPMorgan has marked down the value of loans made to software companies by private credit groups. These loans are collateral for JPM’s lending to private…
  • Data Update 7 for 2026: Debt and Taxes — Damodaran argues that the private credit industry’s increasing financing of the AI buildout is another sign that “a shakeout is overdue, which will…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets

Top 10% of Earners Drive a Growing Share of US Consumer Spending

Jonnelle Marte Bloomberg
Date Posted:
September 17, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Mark Zandi finds Americans in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of consumer spending in Q2, the highest level since 1989.

Consumers in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of total spending in the second quarter, up from 48.5% in the first quarter, reaching the highest level in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. In contrast, the bottom 80% of the income distribution, or consumers making less than roughly $175,000 a year, have seen their spending merely keep pace with inflation since the pandemic.

Related Articles:

  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People — The top 10% of US earners now account for nearly half of all personal spending, according to Moody’s @Markzandi, up from 36% three decades ago. “The finances…
  • To Understand America Today, Study the Zero-Sum Mindset — Zero-sum thinking, in terms of political and policy views is strongly associated with lower levels of intergenerational upward mobility. @S_Stantcheva notes…
  • Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides — Zero-sum thinking in terms of political and policy views is strongly associated with lower levels of intergenerational upward mobility. @S_Stantcheva…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

Litigation Nation, Engineering Empire

Jonathon Sine Cogitations
Date Posted:
September 2, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Jonathon Sine argues China “is moving beyond its breakneck industrial prime, facing similar dilemmas to those America confronted in the 1960s and 70s.” The ratio of science/engineering to humanities undergraduate majors is 2:1 in both the PRC and US.

Dan Wang’s “big idea” [is] “China is an engineering state, building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States’ lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad.” I re-group US college majors according to Chinese disciplines to allow for rough comparison. Surprisingly, the ratio of science/engineering to humanities/social sciences is 2:1, the same as in China (if one groups management with science/engineering, as I also do for China). As with China today, America’s breakneck building phase was decidedly winding down by the 1960s. Urbanization went from 40% in 1900 to 70% by 1960, and grew much more incrementally over the next 60 years to 85% by 2020. The country simply did not need to continue building dams, expressways, and energy production facilities at breakneck pace. It became much more a matter of maintaining and upgrading (which has not gone well, at least according to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ report card). The American [building/investment slowdown that started after the 1970s] may be more about structural economic shifts than lawyers.

Related Articles:

  • Industrial Colossus: China vs 1950s America — Jonathan Sine argues China’s global manufacturing share is likely near its peak as growth has slowed from 1.5% to 0.5% btw 2010 and today due to…
  • The Real China Model — Electricity supplies nearly 30% of China’s energy use today and is growing at an annual rate of 6%. In the US, electricity accounts for 22% of energy use and…
  • America’s Housing Affordability Crisis and the Decline of Housing Supply — Why are constant-quality house prices 15% above their pre-2007 peak? Ed Glaeser notes that US housing grew just 0.6% annually in the 2010s, down from 4% in the…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Growth

How America’s AI Boom Is Squeezing The Rest Of The Economy

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
August 19, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

As AI-related investment has risen since 2023, residential and nonresidential investment have declined or flatlined. This may suggest that a relatively rate-insensitive AI buildout is crowding out more interest-sensitive forms of investment.

Something like a sixth of the 2% rise in American real GDP over the past year has come from investments in computer and communications equipment, including chips, and data centres. Add in the grid upgrades to power AI models, plus the intellectual-property value of the software itself, and one estimate puts the boom’s contribution to real GDP growth at 40%. The trouble is that the very sector powering so much of America’s economic growth is squeezing the rest of its output. Housebuilders, for instance, cannot afford to be blithe about higher borrowing costs. Data centres have also constrained the rest of the economy by keeping energy prices high. Average American electricity bills have risen by 7% so far in 2025, at least in part due to the extra strain data centres have put on the grid. Real consumption has flatlined since December. Housebuilding has slumped, as has non-AI business investment.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Kedrosky estimates capex related to the datacenter buildout is ~20% of the railroad buildout in the 1880s and rising, though he cautions AI datacenter…
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four major “hyperscalers” continue to have a large gap btw AI spending ($440B in 2024 and $596B in 2025) and AI revenues. The four firms now account for…
  • The AI Boom’s Hidden Risk to the Economy — Btw 2016 and 2023, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft’s free cash flow and net earnings ~ tracked each other; since 2023, net earnings have risen 73%…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Is it Over?

Joseph Wang Fed Guy Blog
Date Posted:
August 18, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Following tepid reactions to the release of GTP-5, Joe Wang observes, “It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from.”

GPT-5 users widely expressed disappointment in the capabilities of the new release, which seemed in some ways a step back. This sentiment is reflected in benchmarks that show a modest improvement in capabilities since the significant improvement in version 4 released two years ago. In addition, the benchmarks suggest a broader convergence in the capabilities of AI models. Commentary suggests this could be due to inherent limitations in the LLM technology and exhaustion of new training data. AI is fascinating technology, but it may not justify the enormous sums spent in its pursuit. It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from. The entire macro landscape would look very different without the support of the AI boom.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Kedrosky estimates capex related to the datacenter buildout is ~20% of the railroad buildout in the 1880s and rising, though he cautions AI datacenter…
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four major “hyperscalers” continue to have a large gap btw AI spending ($440B in 2024 and $596B in 2025) and AI revenues. The four firms now account for…
  • AI’s $600B Question — .@DavidCahn6 at @sequoia argues that because of lack of pricing power and rapidly improving chip technologies, multi-$B investments in current-generation GPUs…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

US Households and Firms Are in Great Shape

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
March 31, 2025
Is Database:
Database

​​Torsten Sløk notes that US household and banking sector debt has fallen to its lowest level in decades as a % of GDP, while corporate leverage has moved sideways. “The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.”

Household sector leverage and banking sector leverage have declined significantly since 2008. Over the same period, federal government leverage has increased significantly, and corporate leverage has moved sideways. The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.

Related Articles:

  • Global Debt Report 2025 — Over the next two years, the US must refinance debt exceeding 25% of GDP at sharply higher rates. Treasuries issued in 2024 carried an average yield…
  • The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055 — Debt as a % of GDP will hit an all-time high of 107% in 2029 up from 98% of GDP in 2024, @USCBO forecasts. The forecast assumes 10-year Treasuries will yield…
  • Our Thoughts on Large US Deficits and Their Impact on Bond Yields — Bridgewater believes an increase in the deficit to 7-8% of GDP will not put undue pressure on bond yields. They argue rates reflect total credit creation…
  • Business Cycle
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Government Spending
  • GDP
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms