Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “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 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
  • “…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 comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…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
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
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 199
  • Primary focus 112
Showing 112 database articles primarily about Inflation
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Inflation
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,206 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Inflation):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Magical Monetary Theory

Steve Hanke Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
June 5, 2019
Is Database:
Database

@SteveHanke Inflation is fundamentally driven by money growth, as evidenced by Japan’s economic history. Low M3 growth has coincided with high government debt and low inflation, challenging Modern Monetary Theory’s claims.

@SteveHanke Inflation is fundamentally driven by money growth, as evidenced by Japan’s economic history. Low M3 growth...
Inflation is fundamentally driven by money growth, as evidenced by Japan's economic history. From 1974-84, Japan experienced stable broad-money growth, steady real GDP growth, and low inflation. However, post-1985, monetary policy shifts led to a bubble and subsequent stagnation. Japan's M2 growth has been minimal, averaging 2.6% annually since 1990, resulting in deflationary pressures with prices decreasing by 0.6% annually. Similarly, in the U.S., from 1971-82, M3 growth averaged 11.6% annually, leading to high inflation despite low government debt. In contrast, since 2009, low M3 growth of 4.5% annually has coincided with high government debt and low inflation. These patterns underscore that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, challenging Modern Monetary Theory's claims that fiscal deficits are inconsequential if financed in domestic currency. Classical monetary theory remains crucial for understanding economic trends, emphasizing the dominance of money supply over fiscal policy in driving inflation.

“…As long as M2 growth in Japan remains minimal, low inflation—or outright deflation—will prevail regardless of whether the public and private sectors are running savings surpluses or deficits. As Milton Friedman counseled, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” The same is true of deflation. Money dominates. Understanding Japan and other economies requires classical monetary theory, not MMT nostrums. From 1974-84, Japan enjoyed a golden period with generally stable broad-money growth, steady real GDP growth, and low inflation. Then monetary policy was derailed by the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord. The Bank of Japan dropped monetary targets and began to focus on interest-rate targets. The result was Japan’s disastrous bubble from 1987-90, followed by a so-called lost decade, which has turned into a lost generation. According to the Bank of Japan, the basic idea of interest-rate targeting is that if interest rates can be pushed low enough, sooner or later companies or households will start spending. But as Irving Fisher showed a century ago, interest rates follow inflation; they don’t precede it. That is why economies experiencing high rates of inflation, like Argentina and Turkey, have high interest rates, while Japan and the eurozone have very low or even negative rates. For Japan (and the eurozone), this circle can be broken only by increasing broad-money growth. The best way to do that would be for the central bank to purchase securities from nonbank institutions such as insurance companies and pension funds, creating new deposits. But the vast bulk of the Bank of Japan’s securities purchases currently come from banks. That’s why broad-money growth in Japan remains anemic. Recent U.S. history also demonstrates the superior explanatory power of classical monetary theory. From 1971-82, M3 money-supply growth averaged 11.6% a year, while the average level of government debt was only 40.1% of GDP. This combination of rapid monetary growth and low government debt resulted in relatively high inflation. Money dominated. Today the U.S. faces the opposite: low broad-money growth with high government debt. Since 2009, M3 growth has averaged 4.5% a year, while federal, state and local government debt today is more than 100% of GDP. This combination has resulted in relatively low inflation. This is no mystery. As always, money dominates. MMT advocates would have us believe that governments can run deficits without limit as long as they are financed by securities denominated in their own currencies—at least until inflation takes off. What they fail to understand is that budget deficits have nothing to do with inflation, unless they are financed by rapid broad-money growth. Money dominates economic trends, and classical monetary theory tells us why.Beware of those peddling MMT snake oil….”

John Greenwood and Steve Hanke, "Magical Monetary Theory,"Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2019, https://www.wsj.com/articles/magical-monetary-theory-11559687814

Magical Monetary Theory

‘Modern monetary theory” is the latest craze to circulate among the chattering classes. It is a fuzzy, post-Keynesian theory that has caught on in antiausterity circles. The MMT doctrine states that fiscal deficits don’t matter as long as countries borrow in their own currencies and inflation stays in check. This is like manna from heaven for proponents of more government spending and larger fiscal deficits.

Not surprisingly, MMT has reared its head in Japan, where debt is denominated in yen, inflation is nowhere to be found, and the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product has gone to the moon. MMT advocates claim Japan provides proof for their theory, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Separate, potent forces have given rise to two seemingly strange trends in the Japanese economy: dramatic changes in the savings-investment balances in the public and private sectors, and the failure of monetary policy. MMT doesn’t explain either one.

At the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, Japan’s government deficit was only 2% of GDP, while the combined corporate and household surplus amounted to 5.1%. Within a year, a massive contraction of private investment and consumption occurred in Japan. By the fourth quarter of 2009, the private-sector surplus had surged to 12% of GDP. At the same time, the government deficit exploded to 9.9% of GDP. The resulting net savings surplus has fueled capital outflows. Today, these outflows amount to 2.1% of GDP and finance a stream of Japanese foreign investment.

This pattern of large private savings surpluses offset in part by large public deficits continues. The result has been a massive increase in the size and role of the Japanese public sector. Government debt has risen from 60% of GDP in 1990 to an astounding 235% today. But contrary to MMT, this fiscal extravagance has done nothing to boost the economy.

Separate from Japan’s overall savings surpluses, its broad-money metrics have grown at a snail’s pace. Since Japan’s bubble burst in 1990-91, broad money has grown at a paltry 2.6% a year, as measured by M2. In addition, since the 1950s money velocity has been negative, decreasing at an average rate of close to 2% a year. This is one of the most striking and consistent macroeconomic relationships on record. Japan’s slow broad-money growth mixed with a contracting money velocity has held down nominal GDP growth.

Faced with a contracting money velocity, Japan would have to increase its M2 money supply at a minimum of 5% a year, which is double its trend rate, to hit its inflation target of 2% a year and reach its potential annual growth rate of 1%. In practice, inadequate M2 growth over nearly three decades, combined with a declining money velocity, has translated into average real growth of just 0.9% a year. This has put Japan into a deflationary straitjacket, with prices decreasing by an average of 0.6% a year, as measured by the GDP deflator.

As long as M2 growth in Japan remains minimal, low inflation—or outright deflation—will prevail regardless of whether the public and private sectors are running savings surpluses or deficits. As Milton Friedman counseled, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” The same is true of deflation. Money dominates.

Understanding Japan and other economies requires classical monetary theory, not MMT nostrums. From 1974-84, Japan enjoyed a golden period with generally stable broad-money growth, steady real GDP growth, and low inflation. Then monetary policy was derailed by the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord. The Bank of Japan dropped monetary targets and began to focus on interest-rate targets. The result was Japan’s disastrous bubble from 1987-90, followed by a so-called lost decade, which has turned into a lost generation.

According to the Bank of Japan, the basic idea of interest-rate targeting is that if interest rates can be pushed low enough, sooner or later companies or households will start spending. But as Irving Fisher showed a century ago, interest rates follow inflation; they don’t precede it. That is why economies experiencing high rates of inflation, like Argentina and Turkey, have high interest rates, while Japan and the eurozone have very low or even negative rates.

For Japan (and the eurozone), this circle can be broken only by increasing broad-money growth. The best way to do that would be for the central bank to purchase securities from nonbank institutions such as insurance companies and pension funds, creating new deposits. But the vast bulk of the Bank of Japan’s securities purchases currently come from banks. That’s why broad-money growth in Japan remains anemic.

Recent U.S. history also demonstrates the superior explanatory power of classical monetary theory. From 1971-82, M3 money-supply growth averaged 11.6% a year, while the average level of government debt was only 40.1% of GDP. This combination of rapid monetary growth and low government debt resulted in relatively high inflation. Money dominated.

Today the U.S. faces the opposite: low broad-money growth with high government debt. Since 2009, M3 growth has averaged 4.5% a year, while federal, state and local government debt today is more than 100% of GDP. This combination has resulted in relatively low inflation. This is no mystery. As always, money dominates.

MMT advocates would have us believe that governments can run deficits without limit as long as they are financed by securities denominated in their own currencies—at least until inflation takes off. What they fail to understand is that budget deficits have nothing to do with inflation, unless they are financed by rapid broad-money growth. Money dominates economic trends, and classical monetary theory tells us why. Beware of those peddling MMT snake oil.

  • Inflation
  • Monetary Policy
Previous articleJune 3, 2019How New Yorks Elite Public Schools Lost Their Black and Hispanic StudentsNYC’s elite public schools have seen a significant decline in Black and Hispanic student enrollment, dropping to just 10% despite these groups representing 70% of the city’s school system.Next articleJune 5, 2019Conversations with Tyler: Paul Krugman@PaulKrugman discusses the economic implications of trade policies, highlighting that Trump tariffs have increased consumer prices & resulted in a net welfare loss of $1.4bn per month, or $17bn annually, which is less than 0.1% of U.S. GDP.
Showing 111 database articles primarily about Inflation

Choking Iran's Economy Is the Least Bad Way to End the War

AI Summary. Iran's economy is contracting at its fastest rate in roughly 40 years, with inflation above 50%, food costs doubling year-over-year, and the national currency near worthless.

Javier Blas Bloomberg
Date Posted:
August 20, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Inflation in Iran is running at at least ~69%, its highest annual rate in 70 years. The black market exchange value of a rial hit a record low of ~1.85mm rials to the dollar, relative to 50,000 per dollar five years ago.

Is economic collapse the only path to ending the conflict?

Core argument: Iran’s inflation rate exceeds 50% annually — the highest in nearly 70 years of records — while food and essential goods costs have doubled year over year, severely compressing household purchasing power across the economy.

[Iran's] economy is on track to suffer the biggest annual contraction since the nadir of the Iran-Iraq War in the mid-1980s. Inflation is running well above 50%, the highest annual rate since records start nearly 70 years ago. Worse, the cost of food and other necessities has already doubled from a year ago. Its currency, the rial, is worthless. In the black market, the exchange rate has collapsed to a record low of about 1.85 million rials to the dollar; five years ago, roughly 50,000 rials were enough to buy a greenback.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Iran’s inflation rate exceeds 50% annually — the highest in nearly 70 years of records — while food and essential goods costs have doubled year over year, severely compressing household purchasing power across the economy.
  2. Iran’s GDP is on track for its steepest annual contraction since the mid-1980s Iran-Iraq War nadir, a deterioration that surpasses every recessionary episode across four intervening decades.

Related Articles:

  • Soaring Diesel Prices Rip Across The US Economy — Diesel prices have reached $5.47 per gallon, near an all-time high, as global supply disruptions push the cost of refining diesel above crude oil to record levels.
  • For the Oil Market, the Strait of Hormuz Isn’t Closed — At least 5m barrels of oil per day continue to transit the Strait of Hormuz, with the true volume likely higher as growing oil spills from tanker attacks indicate ongoing vessel traffic despite efforts to close the waterway.
  • U.S. Economy Less Vulnerable To Geopolitical Oil Price Shocks Than In The Past — Kilian, et al find that the impact of an energy shock on US real GDP growth has fallen to 1/20th of what it would have been in 1980, due both to the declining…
  • Inflation
  • Energy
  • GDP
  • Politics
  • Security

A Return To Monetarism?

AI Summary. Excessive money growth reliably signals inflationary pressure regardless of whether its source is monetary or fiscal policy, because any fiscal expansion that increases money supply is captured in price-gap models tracking monetary aggregates.

Peter Ireland, Stephen Miran and Nouriel Roubini Hudson Bay Capital
Date Posted:
July 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Ireland, Miran, and Roubini compare the actual price level to the predictions of an equilibrium model relating prices to money supply. Predicted inflation hit a 60-year high in 2020–21, months before inflation surged and then crashed once the Fed hiked.

Does excess money growth always predict inflation regardless of its source?

The graphs in Figure 3 show quite clearly how the surge in money growth starting in 2020 and continuing in 2021 put enormous upward pressure on inflation, to a degree unprecedented in the post-1967 sample period. And while the large and negative price gaps that followed in 2022 and 2023 are likewise indicative of strong disinflationary pressures applied through subsequent monetary tightening, one can’t see these graphs without asking: Had Federal Open Market Committee members been monitoring measures of money growth with the help of the P-star [price target based on monetary aggregates] model, might they have ended QE and raised interest rates sooner and more quickly, thereby avoiding at least some of the post-2020 inflation? Of course, massive fiscal expansion was another driver of the post-2020 surge in inflation, as suggested by fiscal theories of the price level. The model simply observes that regardless of its originating source, excessive money growth signals that inappropriate macroeconomic policies are fueling higher inflation. Fiscal expansions that expand money supply will be reflected in a P-star model.

Related Articles:

  • Money and Inflation — Jesper Rangvid argues that monetarist theory would have predicted deflation from the recent contraction in the M2 money supply. Continuing inflation leaves him…
  • State Dependence of Monetary Policy During Global Supply Chain Disruptions — Bai, et al present evidence that btw 2017 and 2023, monetary tightening reduced US inflation relatively more than output during periods of global supply chain…
  • What Next for r*? A Capital Market Equilibrium Perspective On The Natural Rate of Interest — In a base model, steady state r* is still ~0, suggesting that “secular stagnation” may not be a thing of the past. AI expansion and inflation risk could each…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy

Home Alone: Inflation And The New Fed Chair

AI Summary. Current inflation conditions — including labor market tightness, price pressures, supply chain stress, and the output gap — align more closely with historical conditions that prompted the Federal Reserve to raise rates than to cut them. Averaging multiple monetary policy benchmarks points to an optimal interest rate range of 4.00%–4.85%

Michael Cembalest J.P. Morgan
Date Posted:
May 27, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Cembalest notes labor market tightness, price pressures in the manufacturing sector and the implied output gap are “much closer to conditions that have historically prompted the Fed to raise policy rates rather than to lower them.”

Does current inflation warrant higher rates than the Fed currently plans?

Core argument: Monetary policy rules average a 4.00–4.85% Fed Funds range vs. the current 3.50–3.75%, indicating tightening bias drives futures pricing toward.

Inflation indicators the Fed watches include labor market tightness, price pressures in the manufacturing sector, supply chain tightness and the “output gap” which measures how far actual growth is above/below potential growth. [The two] charts plot these four variables at the time of prior Fed decisions to increase or cut policy rates; green dots indicate when the Fed cut, red dots indicate when the Fed tightened and yellow circles show today’s values. In other words: current values are much closer to conditions that have historically prompted the Fed to raise policy rates rather than to lower them. That may be why the futures curve is now pricing in Fed hikes instead of the cuts that were priced in at the start of the year. Superwonky: averaging several different monetary rules of thumb (Taylor rules, inertial, alternative r*, forward-looking) yields a Fed Funds range of 4.00% - 4.85% compared to the current range of 3.50% - 3.75%.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Monetary policy rules average a 4.00–4.85% Fed Funds range vs. the current 3.50–3.75%, indicating tightening bias drives futures pricing toward.
  2. Labor market tightness, manufacturing price pressures, supply chain constraints, and positive output gaps align with historical rate-increase conditions, leading markets.

Related Articles:

  • US Consumer Sentiment Slides to Record Low on Price Concerns — US consumer sentiment has fallen to a record low, driven by rising price expectations of 4.8% over the next year and 3.9% over the long term.
  • The Dangerous Brew That’s Rattling Bond Markets — Government borrowing across major economies has reached unprecedented peacetime levels, with U.S. deficits averaging 6.2% of GDP from 2023–2026 versus 4.1% in the early 2000s. Since 2020, economic shocks have consistently pushed inflation higher rather than lower, forcing long-term interest rates up and adding an estimated $
  • Are Government Bonds Safe in Times of War and Pandemic? — US government bonds, normally safe assets, become risky in times of war because of negative real returns due to bursts of inflation. As in the fiscal theory of…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy

US Consumer Sentiment Slides to Record Low on Price Concerns

AI Summary. US consumer sentiment has fallen to a record low, driven by rising price expectations of 4.8% over the next year and 3.9% over the long term.

María Paula Mijares Torres Bloomberg
Date Posted:
May 26, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index hit a record low in May, falling ~10% month over month. Consumers foresee prices advancing 4.8% over the next year. Inflation and high gas prices have long been major causes of sentiment drops.

Are rising price expectations undermining consumer confidence?

Core argument: Michigan consumer sentiment fell 5 pts to 44.8, undershooting all economist forecasts, driving heightened recession risk perceptions.

The University of Michigan’s final May sentiment index decreased 5 points to 44.8 from April. The gauge was weaker than all projections in a Bloomberg survey of economists as well as the preliminary reading of 48.2. Consumers expect prices to rise an annualized 3.9% over the next five to 10 years, up from 3.5% in April and the highest in seven months. They also saw costs advancing 4.8% over the next year.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Michigan consumer sentiment fell 5 pts to 44.8, undershooting all economist forecasts, driving heightened recession risk perceptions.
  2. Five-to-10-year inflation expectations surged to 3.9% from 3.5% month-over-month, the highest in seven months, leading to eroded purchasing power confidence.
  3. One-year price expectations of 4.8% vs. 3.9% long-term forecasts signal consumers expect near-term cost acceleration to outpace eventual moderation.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — US consumer sentiment is significantly lower than expected based on unemployment and inflation. Alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs…
  • The Dangerous Brew That’s Rattling Bond Markets — Government borrowing across major economies has reached unprecedented peacetime levels, with U.S. deficits averaging 6.2% of GDP from 2023–2026 versus 4.1% in the early 2000s. Since 2020, economic shocks have consistently pushed inflation higher rather than lower, forcing long-term interest rates up and adding an estimated $
  • $50 Trillion Safe-Haven Debt Market Upended by Iran War Inflation — The $50tn market for Group of Seven sovereign bonds is under pressure as investors price in persistent inflation, driving long-term yields to their highest level in two decades. Rising government debt and unresolved post-pandemic price pressures are compounding the risk, forcing expectations of higher interest rates to contain inflation.
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Politics

Where Did All the Affordable Cars Go?

AI Summary. The average new car costs ~$50,000, with sub-$20,000 options nearly extinct, while repair costs have risen 15%, making car ownership unaffordable for budget consumers. Removing import barriers on lower-cost foreign vehicles would expand access, as comparable Chinese models sell for ~$20,000 less than U.S. equivalents while offering superior performance

Clifford Winston New York Times
Date Posted:
April 15, 2026
Is Database:
Database

In 2012, there were ~12 new cars available for around $25,000 in real terms in the US. Today, there are only 4 new cars available at that price point. Clifford Winston notes allowing Chinese imports would likely increase that number to 11.

How Can Lower-Cost Foreign Vehicles Improve Car Affordability?

Core argument: Average new car prices reached $50,000, up from sub-$20,000 availability a decade ago, driving affordability crisis for budget consumers.

The average transaction price for a new car now sits around $50,000. In December, it became just about impossible to find one for less than $20,000. For anyone on a budget, an aging car is a trap. Auto repair costs jumped 15% in the last year alone, driven by the complexity of modern sensors and labor shortages. An average trip to the mechanic now costs roughly $840. To fix the problem, policymakers must overturn what has been for decades the third rail in American politics. It is time to stop coddling Detroit automakers [and open] the American market to cars made in China and elsewhere. Chinese cars aren’t just cheaper than the American alternatives. They’re often better. Take BYD’s slightly more upscale Seal sedan. It’s similar to Tesla’s Model 3, introduced nine years ago. But the Seal costs roughly $20,000 less than the Model 3. The Seal’s premium model offers substantially more horsepower, and its battery not only lasts longer, it can also be 80% charged in just 37 minutes. The Seal isn’t just a budget alternative; it is a more advanced machine.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Average new car prices reached $50,000, up from sub-$20,000 availability a decade ago, driving affordability crisis for budget consumers.
  2. Auto repair costs jumped 15% annually to $840 per visit, as sensor complexity and labor shortages result in escalating ownership.

Related Articles:

  • ‘It’s Just Crazy’: High Car Payments Make Ownership Feel Impossible — The mean payment on a new car was $774 in January, up from $588 in January 2021 – an ~32% increase, outpacing the overall 24% increase in the price…
  • Inflation Is Down, But Americans Still Feel an Affordability Squeeze — The US price level has risen 26% since January 2020, leaving Americans’ average weekly real wages up only 3.7% over five years.
  • Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States — Tariffs implemented during the 2018-2019 trade war were “at best a wash, and may have been mildly negative” in terms of employment, but increased political…
  • Inflation
  • China
  • GDP
    • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit
    • Trade (not deficits)
  • Politics

Inflation Is Down, But Americans Still Feel an Affordability Squeeze

Mark Niquette, Jennah Haque and Jade Khatib Bloomberg
Date Posted:
February 19, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The US price level has risen 26% since January 2020, leaving Americans’ average weekly real wages up only 3.7% over five years.

The average American’s weekly pay has risen 31% over the past six years. That’s faster than prices across that period, so Americans in the aggregate aren’t losing ground — but inflation wiped out most of their income gains. For low earners, who saw the fastest wage growth after the pandemic, the last year or so has been tougher and they’re now lagging behind. [Grocery] prices are up about 30% since January 2020, about in line with average wage growth. But Americans had gotten used to paying roughly the same at the supermarket each week in the pre-pandemic years. Lately, they’ve been forced to stomach a bigger bill with almost every visit. A double-punch has pushed homeownership out of reach for many Americans: First the pandemic-era surge in prices, and then a steep run-up in mortgage rates. A young married couple now needs 70% of their annual household income to afford the average down payment, according to Goldman Sachs economist Elsie Peng, up from 58% in 2019 and 45% in 2000. [Further], the average principal and interest payment has doubled since early 2020, according to the National Association of Realtors. Employee premiums for family health insurance have risen 23% in the past five years to almost $6,900 on average. And more than 20 million people who rely on Affordable Care Act plans face a hike in their premiums after Congress let Covid-era subsidies expire.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — US consumer sentiment is significantly lower than expected based on unemployment and inflation. Alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs…
  • Why Do We Dislike Inflation? — New survey research shows that people dislike inflation because they believe that it is associated with declining real wages and falling living standards…
  • A Mystery in Fixed Income — U.S. 10-year yields are higher today than at the start of the Fed’s cutting cycle in September 2024. Sløk notes that the “pattern of rising long-term interest…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms