“…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 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
“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 very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“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
“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
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner

Showing 490 database articles primarily about Productivity

Currently filtering by:

Remove Productivity

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

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 892

Only articles primarily about these topics 490

Diverging Trends in National and Local Concentration

Rossi-Hansberg, Esteban, Pierre-Daniel Sarte, and Nicholas Trachter Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Date Posted:: May 21, 2020
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

National concentration has risen, but local concentration has declined, driven by large firms expanding into new local markets, reducing local concentration & fostering competition.

Recent data reveals a paradox in market concentration trends: while national concentration has increased, local concentration has decreased. This divergence is driven by large firms expanding into new local markets, which reduces local concentration and fosters competition. Between 1990 and 2014, industries with falling local concentration accounted for 72% of employment and 66% of sales. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) shows that local concentration declines are most pronounced in services, retail trade, and FIRE sectors. When top firms open new plants, local concentration drops and remains lower for at least 7 years, indicating that large firms do not dominate but rather enhance competition in local markets. This trend suggests a more competitive environment at the local level despite rising national concentration.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Between 1990 and 2014, industries with falling local concentration accounted for 72% of employment and 66% of sales, even as national concentration rose.
Measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, local concentration declines are most pronounced in services, retail trade, and finance, insurance, and real estate sectors.
When top firms open new plants, local concentration drops and remains lower for at least seven years, a pattern attributed to large firms expanding into new local markets.

Research from FRBR, while market concentration has risen nationally, concentration of smaller markets as gone down. "...We have shown...that the increase in market concentration observed at the national level over the last 25 years is being shaped by enterprises expanding into new local markets. This expansion into local markets is accompanied by a fall in local concentration as firms open establishments in new locations. These observations are suggestive of more, rather than less, competitive markets...."Counterintuitively (figure 15) if you net out the largest firm, concentration is unchanged suggesting that either small business stay in business or when a big firm enters a market other big firms do as well.

"....Using U.S. NETS data, we present evidence that the positive trend observed in national product market concentration between 1990 and 2014 becomes a negative trend when we focus on measures of local concentration. We document diverging trends for several geographic definitions of local markets. SIC 8 industries with diverging trends are pervasive across sectors. In these industries, top firms have contributed to the amplification of both trends. When a top firm opens a plant, local concentration declines and remains lower for at least 7 years. Our findings, therefore, reconcile the increasing national role of large firms with falling local concentration, and a likely more competitive local environment....In this paper, we use the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) dataset to document four main facts regarding national and local product-market concentration in the U.S. economy between 1990 and 2014. Our first fact is that the observed positive trend in market concentration at the national level has been accompanied by a corresponding negative trend in average local market concentration.We measure concentration using the Herndahl-Hirschman index (HHI), but our findings hold for a variety of statistics..... The second fact shows that local concentration is falling across SIC 8 industries that together account for 78% of employment and 72% of sales.Furthermore, conditioning on industries where national concentration is rising, industries where local concentration has declined account for the majority of employment overall (72% of employment and 66% of sales) across all major sectors. The presence of these diverging trends is always large but more pronounced in services, retail trade, and FIRE relative to wholesale trade and manufacturing. This ordering is natural given that transport costs are less relevant in the latter two sectors. Together, these first two facts underscore an unmistakable decline in local concentration on average that is pervasive across all sectors..... Our third fact shows that among SIC 8 industries that exhibit this pattern, top firms have accelerated these trends. That is, excluding the top
firm in each industry (in terms of national sales in their SIC 8 industry in 2014), the national increase in concentration becomes naturally less pronounced.Perhaps more surprisingly, the decline in local concentration also becomes less pronounced.Put another way, large firms have materially contributed to the observed decline in local concentration. Among industries with diverging trends, large firms have become bigger but the associated geographic expansion of these firms, through the opening of more plants in new local markets, has lowered local concentration thus suggesting increased local competition. In the considerably smaller set of industries where we observe increases in both national and local concentration, top firms have also been responsible for both forms of concentration......Our fourth fact establishes that among industries with falling local concentration, the opening of a plant by a top firm is associated with a decline in local concentration at the time of the opening, and that this lower level of concentration persists for at least the next 7 years.This observation provides further evidence that in those industries, large enterprises do not enter and dominate the local market but instead lower its concentration, either by competing with the previous local monopolist or by simply adding one more establishment that grabs a proportional market share from other local establishments. In any case, the notion that entry by large firms eliminates local producers to the point of increasing concentration is certainly not supported in the vast majority of industries where most of U.S. employment resides...."

Rossi-Hansberg, Esteban, Pierre-Daniel Sarte, and Nicholas Trachter. April 17, 2019. “Diverging Trends in National and Local Concentration.” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.https://www.princeton.edu/~erossi/DTNLC.pdf

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.

Nine Percent of GDP

Hanno Lustig The Two Cents

Date Posted:: September 28, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The US AI-buildout is projected to average ~3.6% of GDP over 2025–32. Lustig notes data-center operators will need ~$3.725T in annual compute revenue by 2032, 9.2% of projected GDP, to earn a 10% unlevered return on the buildout.

What do you have to believe about future revenue in order for all data center owners to to break even on their AI investment? Using a 10% discount rate, Stijn’s baseline number is 3.725 trillion of annual revenue by 2032, which would amount to roughly 9.2% of projected 2032 GDP. This number is the top line earned from selling compute in aggregate by whoever operates the 182.7 GW of US capacity completed by 2032.2. The assumptions behind that number: 183 GW of U.S. data-center capacity completed between 2025 and 2032. $8.54 trillion of construction cost, grossed up to a $9.61 trillion capital base to account for the return on capital tied up during construction. A 10% discount rate. A 6-year life for IT equipment (68% of cost) and a 20-year life for everything else (32%). A 50% operating cash flow margin.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Stijn’s baseline estimate holds that data center owners would need $3.725 trillion of annual revenue by 2032 — roughly 9.2% of projected 2032 GDP — to break even on AI investment at a 10% discount rate.
The break-even calculation assumes 183 GW of U.S. data-center capacity completed between 2025 and 2032 at $8.54 trillion of construction cost, grossed up to a $9.61 trillion capital base for return on capital tied up during construction.
The estimate assumes a 6-year life for IT equipment, which accounts for 68% of cost, a 20-year life for the remaining 32%, and a 50% operating cash flow margin.

Financing the AI Buildout

Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

Date Posted:: September 24, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh projects ~$10.3T will be spent on the AI buildout over 2025–2032, averaging 3.63% of GDP. He estimates 2/3 of that spending reflects IT equipment and one-third real estate and associated power infrastructure.

The required investment is enormous. A representative 200 MW AI training campus costs roughly $8.2 billion, about two-thirds of which reflects IT equipment and one-third the real estate and associated power infrastructure. We estimate that 183 GW is completed by 2032 with a further 118 GW completed after 2032. This pipeline will trigger about $10.3 trillion dollars of investment over 2025–2032. At an average of 3.63% of GDP per year, the projected buildout would be larger relative to the economy than the major U.S. canal, railroad, electrification, highway, and telecommunications investment booms. It would double the electricity consumption of the entire U.S. residential sector.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Using Cleanview project-level data from July 2026, the authors estimate roughly 57 GW of operating U.S. data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of roughly 509 GW, which they stress is not a completion forecast.
The authors’ central scenario allocates the announced pipeline so that 182.8 GW of additional U.S. capacity becomes operational during 2025–32, including 19.0 GW tied to projects already operational in 2025 or 2026.
The authors’ scenario has 117.2 GW of planned data center capacity completed after 2032 and 226.9 GW never completed, applying lower realization rates to more distant and less fully documented projects.

Moonshot Capitalism: AI Rewrites The Venture Capital Playbook

Tim Bradshaw Financial Times

Date Posted:: September 10, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.

The AI boom is fuelling a resurgence in ambitious “moonshot” bets, as early SpaceX backers’ huge returns and falling valuations for traditional software companies force tech investors to embrace riskier and more capital-intensive dealmaking. Excluding the giant sums ploughed into AI start-ups, global investment in “deep tech” — companies whose products are rooted in big scientific or engineering advances — has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn in the entire decade to the end of 2019, according to Dealroom. This year’s deep-tech investments have not yet surpassed 2021’s peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for the likes of Rivian and Northvolt — many of which turned sour, highlighting the risks involved in moonshot dealmaking.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Global "deep tech" investment excluding AI start-ups has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn invested in the entire decade through 2019, according to Dealroom.
Huge returns for early SpaceX backers and falling valuations for traditional software companies are pushing tech investors toward riskier, more capital-intensive "moonshot" dealmaking.
Deep-tech investment has not yet surpassed the 2021 peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for companies such as Rivian and Northvolt, many of which turned sour.

National concentration has risen, but local concentration has declined, driven by large firms expanding into new local markets, reducing local concentration & fostering competition.

Why has local market concentration fallen as national concentration has risen?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

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:

The US AI-buildout is projected to average ~3.6% of GDP over 2025–32. Lustig notes data-center operators will need ~$3.725T in annual compute revenue by 2032, 9.2% of projected GDP, to earn a 10% unlevered return on the buildout.

How much annual revenue must AI data centers generate to break even?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh projects ~$10.3T will be spent on the AI buildout over 2025–2032, averaging 3.63% of GDP. He estimates 2/3 of that spending reflects IT equipment and one-third real estate and associated power infrastructure.

How much of the planned data center pipeline gets built?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.

Is the AI boom pushing venture capital toward riskier moonshot bets?

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