Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…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
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…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
  • “…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
  • “…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
  • “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
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
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

Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay

Matthew Klein Barron's
Date Posted:
January 13, 2021
Is Database:
Database

Productivity has surged at an 8% annual rate since the pandemic began, partly due to low-wage workers exiting the labor force. Structural changes suggest these gains may persist, with online shopping & remote work boosting productivity.

Since the pandemic began, labor productivity has surged at an 8% annual rate, the fastest since the 1960s, partly due to low-wage workers exiting the labor force. However, structural changes suggest these gains may persist. The shift to online shopping has increased the real value of goods consumed by over 7%, while employment in goods distribution fell by 2.5%, boosting productivity by 10%. Remote work has reduced commuting time, potentially enhancing productivity further. These trends, coupled with a strong financial position for businesses and households, indicate that productivity gains could be sustainable, with retail changes alone potentially adding 0.5 percentage points to annual productivity growth through 2022. This suggests a brighter economic outlook post-pandemic, as efficiency improvements continue to unfold.

Matthew Klein, "Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay,"Barrons, January 8, 2021, https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-the-post-pandemic-future-could-be-bright-productivity-gains-51610143201

Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay

The coronavirus has displaced tens of millions of workers, and forced thousands of businesses to close. But the virus has also encouraged rapid changes in the way we work and consume—and some of those changes could be both beneficial and long-lasting.

Once the virus is eradicated, higher productivity in retail, the reduction of long commutes by people working from home, and the conversion of offices and hotels to apartments could eventually make Americans better off than we were before. Some of the benefits could take years to materialize, but others are already here.

In fact, productivity has already grown at an 8% yearly rate since the pandemic began—the fastest pace of improvement since the 1960s. Output per hour worked tends to rise sharply during downturns as companies slash costs and the least efficient businesses are forced to close. Productivity grew more than 4% a year in 2002 and 2003 and by 6% in 2009, but just 2% each year from 2004 to 2007 and by only 1% each year from 2010 to 2019.

Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay: Extended Excerpt Image 1


Some of this is due to the way the data are measured. The average worker’s wage mechanically rises when a lot of low-paid workers suddenly stop having jobs, for example, temporarily inflating aggregate labor productivity even if there haven’t been any genuine efficiency gains.

But there are reasons to think there are other, more positive forces at work this time around—and that the recent uptick could be durable even after society returns to normal. After all, productivity has kept rising even as many low-paid workers were rehired in sectors such as hospitality and retail. Spencer Hill, an economist at Goldman Sachs, thinks that “labor reallocation accounts for less than half” of the reported gains in productivity so far, which “argues against a rapid reversal of aggregate productivity next year” as the virus is eradicated.

Start by looking at how the virus has changed how Americans consume. It’s safer to buy goods online and have them delivered—or dropped off in the trunk of your car—than it is to go into a physical store. The desire for safety may pass once the virus is gone, but selling goods online is more efficient for many retailers, requiring fewer people and less expensive real estate to generate the same amount of turnover.

Since the pandemic began, the total real value of goods consumed has grown more than 7% while the number of people working in the goods distribution sector—retail, wholesale, truck transportation, warehousing, and delivery services—has dropped about 2.5%. Put another way, the amount of stuff Americans are able to buy from a given number of retail and logistics workers has jumped 10% in less than a year. That represents a dramatic acceleration of the long-running trend of Americans consuming more goods while employing fewer people in the distribution of those goods.

Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay: Extended Excerpt Image 2


Hill estimates that the changes in retail alone could boost America’s overall productivity growth rate by about 0.5 percentage point each year at least through 2022. For perspective, labor productivity rose just 1.4% each year on average from 2017 to 2019.

Then there is the rise in remote work necessitated by the pandemic. That’s not obviously a productivity booster for anyone with children at a time when schools are closed, but for many others, the absence of a commute saves an enormous amount of time and stress each day. Those gains would be widely shared once the virus is eradicated.

Before the pandemic, about 40% of Americans who didn’t work from home spent at least an hour commuting each day, with 10% spending at least two hours commuting back and forth. The share of Americans who worked from home full time was just 5.7% in 2019, although almost a quarter of American workers were working from home a few hours each day.

As of December, about 26% of full-time workers were doing their jobs from home to avoid the virus. Almost 60% of the workers in “business and financial operations occupations,” “computer and mathematical occupations,” “architecture and engineering occupations,” and “legal occupations” were working remotely.

Why the Post-Pandemic Future Could Be Bright: Productivity Gains Could Be Here to Stay: Extended Excerpt Image 3


If remote work becomes normal, some of those long-distance commuters may choose to stay home permanently, or relocate to a different part of the country where they wouldn’t need to travel so far to access urban amenities. That in turn could encourage some of the blue-collar service workers they indirectly employ to migrate to suburbs and cheaper cities, potentially lifting their real wages.

The shift could free up valuable real estate currently used as office space. While it would initially be costly to convert buildings to needed housing, the longer-term gains could be substantial. Cost-conscious suburbanites might even choose to relocate to urban cores as apartment prices fall relative to wages and interest rates. Similarly, a permanent drop in business travel could free up buildings currently used as hotels for other uses.

These positive trends are occurring at a time when the private sector’s financial position is strong: the majority of Americans are richer than they were before the pandemic thanks to the rise in home values and stock prices, while businesses are flush with cash and earning record profits. Spending power is set to get a further boost thanks to the recently passed relief bill and the additional checks that will likely be distributed in the next few months, which should help lower the risk of permanent damage to workers and businesses.

Put it together, and the prospects for pandemic survivors could be better than what might have been reasonably expected at the end of 2019.

He flags one big trend, the acceleration of online shopping which has a surprising impact on productivity, “…selling goods online is more efficient for many retailers, requiring fewer people and less expensive real estate to generate the same amount of turnover. Since the pandemic began, the total real value of goods consumed has grown more than 7% while the number of people working in the goods distribution sector—retail, wholesale, truck transportation, warehousing, and delivery services—has dropped about 2.5%. Put another way, the amount of stuff Americans are able to buy from a given number of retail and logistics workers has jumped 10% in less than a year. That represents a dramatic acceleration of the long-running trend of Americans consuming more goods while employing fewer people in the distribution of those goods.Hill estimates that the changes in retail alone could boost America’s overall productivity growth rate by about 0.5 percentage point each year at least through 2022. For perspective, labor productivity rose just 1.4% each year on average from 2017 to 2019….”

Matt Klein stiches together some anecdotal evidence on the impact of pandemic on productivity, parallels your views on evolution, driven by extinction level events good factoid, "... In fact, productivity has already grown at an 8% yearly rate since the pandemic began—the fastest pace of improvement since the 1960s..”Granted those gains are inflated due to low skill workers leaving labor force.

Ed Comment:“…I am skeptical. There was a compositional shift away from lower skilled workers that needs to be accounted for. And no one is investing in developing new client relationship so they are sacrificing the future for the present. On the other hand. Necessity is the mother of invention. Lots of people ar doing things like learning how to zoom that they otherwise would have postponed….”

We’ll see about the potential gains from remote work, “..Before the pandemic, about 40% of Americans who didn’t work from home spent at least an hour commuting each day, with 10% spending at least two hours commuting back and forth. The share of Americans who worked from home full time was just 5.7% in 2019, although almost a quarter of American workers were working from home a few hours each day.As of December, about 26% of full-time workers were doing their jobs from home to avoid the virus. Almost 60% of the workers in “business and financial operations occupations,” “computer and mathematical occupations,” “architecture and engineering occupations,” and “legal occupations” were working remotely. If remote work becomes normal, some of those long-distance commuters may choose to stay home permanently, or relocate to a different part of the country where they wouldn’t need to travel so far to access urban amenities. That in turn could encourage some of the blue-collar service workers they indirectly employ to migrate to suburbs and cheaper cities, potentially lifting their real wages….”

  • Business Cycle
  • Productivity
    • Workforce Reorganization
      • High vs Low Skill
Previous articleJanuary 13, 2021The 2010s saw the lowest population growth in U.S. history, new census estimates showNew census estimates show the 2010-2020 period likely saw the slowest population growth in U.S. history, with a growth rate of just 6.6%, the lowest since 1790.Next articleJanuary 15, 2021President Trump Leaves Office Next Week. Heres What He Meant for the EconomyTrump’s presidency saw notable increases in small business optimism, CFO economic optimism, and household financial situation expectations. The S&P 500 rose over 12% annually from Trump’s election to his loss to Biden.
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