Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “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 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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…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 must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “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
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 380
  • Primary focus 194
Showing 194 database articles primarily about Government Spending
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Government Spending
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,196 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Government Spending):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Save Capitalism From the Cares Act

Luigi Zingales Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
March 31, 2020
Is Database:
Database

The Cares Act risks crowding out private capital allocation in 2020 by enabling the Federal Reserve to potentially lend up to $4.54tn, surpassing all U.S. commercial and industrial loans and new corporate bonds issued in 2019. @LuigiZingales @WSJ.

The Cares Act risks crowding out private capital allocation in 2020 by enabling the Federal Reserve to potentially lend up...
The Cares Act risks crowding out private capital allocation in 2020 by enabling the Federal Reserve to potentially lend up to $4.54tn, surpassing all U.S. commercial and industrial loans and new corporate bonds issued in 2019. This unprecedented move towards a centrally planned economy socializes losses while keeping profits private. With only $377bn of the $2tn package targeted at preserving U.S. production capacity, the Act's design favors large corporations, allocating $510bn for their support. This allocation, under intense lobbying pressure, lacks transparency and accountability, threatening the essence of American capitalism. The urgency of the crisis has facilitated a significant corporate subsidy, necessitating stricter conditions and oversight to ensure fiscal prudence and safeguard the capital market's role in economic recovery.

,

"...Thus, if this capital is all deployed by the Fed, and at rates that will surely crowd out private capital, all capital allocation in the U.S. in 2020 will be done by the Federal Reserve System, not by the capital market. This is the largest step toward a centrally planned economy the U.S. has ever taken. And it socializes only losses. Profits, when they come, remain private....."

Amit Seru and Luigi Zingales, "Save Capitalism From the Cares Act,"Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-capitalism-from-the-cares-act-11585608917

Save Capitalism From the Cares Act

A surreal bipartisanship prevails in Washington. Everyone wants to spend, spend, spend. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who aggressively fought President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, was delighted the other day to announce a fiscal stimulus more than twice as large. Democrats are pushing for more.

Are we all Keynesians now? Or have we all embraced the so-called Modern Monetary Theory, which suggests that when an economy is below its full potential, we can print money to finance any deficit without provoking inflation? No. The answer is much simpler. We are all experiencing the effects of combining a real crisis with powerful lobbying.

With 20% of Americans locked in their homes, nearly all air travel canceled, and the global supply chain disrupted, you don’t need to be a Keynesian to think the government should intervene. But that doesn’t mean the Cares Act—an acronym for Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security—is wise. The last thing we need at this moment is a Keynesian stimulus. Since the lockdowns constrain supply, stimulating demand would lead only to a rise in prices.

Besides helping the medical effort, government intervention should offer financial help to people who can’t work, and it should preserve the production capacity of the U.S. economy. The greatest resource most companies have is their teams of employees. If they dismantle those teams because of the pause in the economy, production capacity will be lower at the end of the pandemic.

Only $377 billion of the $2 trillion package is directly targeted to this goal. These are loans to small firms (fewer than 500 employees), which are forgivable if the funds are spent on payroll, rent, mortgage interest and utilities. By using 2017 census data (the most recent available), we calculated the total expenditures in payroll, interest expenses and rents of U.S. small firms amounts to $258 billion a month. Unless the Trump administration introduces criteria for selective targeting, the money allocated in Cares will run out in a month and a half. Designing the conditions for such targeting isn’t easy, since every requirement will slow the money’s deployment and speed is of essence. Thus, we fear that the administration will soon come back to Congress with a new request for money.

The need to help individuals and small firms has provided cover to the largest corporate subsidy program in U.S. history. Under intense pressure from lobbyists, the Cares Act allocates $510 billion to support loans for large businesses. A small chunk of this money ($56 billion) will be used directly by the Treasury to grant loans to airlines and other “strategic” firms (read: Boeing). The Treasury will then confer the rest ($454 billion) to the Federal Reserve to absorb losses the Fed might incur in lending to firms in the private sector.

The expectation is that the central bank will leverage this money 10 to 1, enabling it to lend up to $4.54 trillion to companies. That sum is more than all U.S. commercial and industrial loans outstanding at the end of 2019 ($2.35 trillion) plus all the new corporate bonds issued during 2019 ($1.41 trillion). Thus, if this capital is all deployed by the Fed, and at rates that will surely crowd out private capital, all capital allocation in the U.S. in 2020 will be done by the Federal Reserve System, not by the capital market. This is the largest step toward a centrally planned economy the U.S. has ever taken. And it socializes only losses. Profits, when they come, remain private.

There needs to be far more transparency, governance and accountability around the Fed’s deployment of trillions of dollars in the real economy. Policy makers also should make the $510 billion program for large companies similar to that for small firms, but with tougher conditions. Again using 2017 census data, we calculated the total expenditures in payroll, interest expenses and rents of all U.S. large companies to be $392 billion a month.

Yet not all large companies are idle. Amazon is doing great, and so are Google and Facebook. Overall, large businesses are likely to be hit less hard than the U.S. economy overall. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24% drop in this coming quarter. Even if the large companies were hit in proportion to the overall downturn, the cost of replacing their wages, rents and interest would be only $94 billion a month. So the $510 billon would last almost half a year.

The urgency of the moment facilitated a giveaway to vested interests. Now that the Cares Act is law, policy makers need to find ways to impose restrictions on how the money is deployed. It isn’t only a question of fiscal prudence; the nature of American capitalism is at stake.

  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Multiplier/Rational Expectations
  • GDP
    • Business Cycle
Previous articleMarch 22, 2020Have RD Spillovers Declined in the 21st Century?R&D spillovers remain unchanged from the 1980s through the 2010s, with $4 of social benefit for every $1 of R&D spent. @BrianLuckingNext articleApril 2, 2020Baby boomers and the housing market on the cusp of COVID-19A 1% lower demographic demand shock in a neighborhood results in an 11% relative decline in home sales within the same county
Showing 193 database articles primarily about Government Spending

The Fairest Way to Reform Social Security May Also Be the Worst Way to Grow the Economy

AI Summary. Raising payroll taxes to fix Social Security's funding gap preserves earned benefits but reduces take-home pay without added compensation, shrinking labor supply and slowing economic growth.

Andrew Biggs American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
May 28, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Biggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued benefits – are less effective than “unfair” ones that do, because the latter incentivize increased work effort, raising growth and revenue.

Biggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued...

Does preserving Social Security benefits require sacrificing economic growth?

Core argument: A 5.2 pts payroll tax increase to 17.6% drives reduced labor supply and slower economic growth vs. the status quo.

Imagine that Social Security reform follows the fairness model, in which accrued benefits are paid in full but the rate at which future benefits are earned is reduced. A simple way to do this is to increase the payroll tax rate To keep Social Security permanently solvent, meaning through 75 years and beyond, would require an immediate and permanent increase in the payroll tax rate [from] 12.4% to 17.6%. The higher rate would decrease labor supply and reduce economic growth. [Consider] an alternate reform, which looks clearly unfair: fix Social Security’s funding gap entirely by reducing accrued benefits that Americans already have earned. As of 2025, Americans had accrued $54 trillion in Social Security benefits. Social Security’s unfunded obligation as of 2025 was $26 trillion. So, roughly, this means cutting Americans’ “earned benefits” in half. [Analyzing the 1977 reform that undid the notorious 1972 “double-indexing” of benefits, a group of economists], using SSA earnings data, found that, for every dollar of lost benefits, the affected Americans increased their earnings by 61 cents. Moreover, these additional earnings would be taxed by Social Security, further strengthening the program’s finances. In effect, this makes cutting benefits a “cheaper” way to fix Social Security than raising taxes, because people respond in ways that also increase tax revenues.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. A 5.2 pts payroll tax increase to 17.6% drives reduced labor supply and slower economic growth vs. the status quo.
  2. $54 trillion in accrued Social Security benefits vs. the unfunded obligation reveals that benefit cuts would reduce growth drag but.

Related Articles:

  • Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality — .@sc_cath @mjmill611 and @NatashaRSarin calculate that the market value of future Social Security benefits represented 49% of the wealth of the bottom 90% in…
  • How Federal Spending is Distributed by Age — Retirees receive 62 cents of every age-assignable federal dollar, driven primarily by Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 80% of all federal spending directed at adults over 65.
  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Transfer payments made up 18% of all US personal income in 2022, up from 8% in 1970. Social Security/Medicare made up 56% of the increase from 1970 to 2022…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Taxation

The World’s Most Surprising Capitalist Makeover Is Under Way in Sweden

AI Summary. Sweden has privatized nearly half of primary healthcare and one in three public high schools, shrinking public social spending to 24% of GDP — comparable to the U.S. and well below France and Italy — while projecting ~2% annual growth through 2030, double the rate of France and Germany.

Tom Fairless Wall Street Journal
Date Posted:
May 12, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Swedish public social spending is now 23.7% of GDP, just 1pp above that of the US and well under France’s 31.6%. Market-based reforms in the 1990s brought overall government spending down from 69.4% to 49.3% in 2024.

How is Sweden's shift to privatization impacting its economic growth?

Core argument: Sweden’s public social spending fell to 24% of GDP, matching the U.S. and 6+ pts below France/Italy, driving lower taxes.

For decades, Sweden was shorthand for the brand of high-tax, high-spend government that managed people’s lives from cradle to grave through state-run hospitals, schools and care homes. No longer. With little fanfare, this Nordic country of 11 million has embraced capitalism. Today, nearly half of primary healthcare clinics are privately owned, many by private-equity firms. One in three public high schools is privately run, up from 20% in 2011. School operators are listed on the stock exchange. The capitalist makeover has allowed Sweden to do what few industrialized countries have managed in recent years: shrink the size of the state. That has enabled the government to sharply lower taxes and, economists say, sparked a surge in entrepreneurship and economic growth. Its total public social spending bill—which includes healthcare, education and all welfare payments—has fallen to 24% of gross domestic product, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% for nations like France and Italy. Sweden’s economy is expected to grow by around 2% a year through 2030, roughly the same pace as the U.S. and double the growth rates of France and Germany, according to an April forecast by the International Monetary Fund.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Sweden’s public social spending fell to 24% of GDP, matching the U.S. and 6+ pts below France/Italy, driving lower taxes.
  2. Privately-run primary healthcare clinics reached nearly 50% of the market vs. 20% for high schools in 2011, demonstrating accelerating privatization.
  3. Sweden’s projected 2% annual GDP growth through 2030 doubles France and Germany’s rates, resulting from state downsizing and capitalist sector.

Related Articles:

  • How Sweden Overcame Socialism — Sweden’s market reforms: Govt spend cut 70% to <50% GDP, debt 80% to 41%, corp tax -6pts to 22%. Results: Growth +1pt vs EU since 1995, GDP/capita now at…
  • Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden — Sweden’s structural reforms, initiated in response to the 1990s crisis, included adopting flexible exchange rates & inflation targeting, leading to…
  • The US Has One of the Highest Fertility Rates Among Peer Countries — As of 2022, the US had a “tempo fertility rate,” which is adjusted for life-cycle effects, of 1.82 – among the highest of advanced economies, and ~ on…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Politics

How Policy and Demographics Are Reshaping SNAP: From Families with Children to Older Adults

AI Summary. SNAP enrollment has doubled from 6% to 12% of the U.S. population since 2000, with real costs per capita rising 179% to $279 annually, driven by policy expansions and benefit increases that prevent costs from fully retreating after economic downturns.

Angela Rachidi American Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
May 1, 2026
Is Database:
Database

About 40mm Americans, 12% of the population, receive SNAP benefits, up from 6% in 2000. In 2023, only 34% of these households included children, down from 49% in 2010, while 36% contained an elderly person, up from 16% in FY2010.

How Are Policy Changes and Demographic Shifts Impacting SNAP Enrollment?

Core argument: SNAP participation doubled from 6% to 12% of the population between FY2000–FY2025, driven by policy expansions and demographic shifts outpacing.

Comparing FY2000 with FY2025, the share of the population receiving SNAP doubled from 6% to 12%, while real SNAP costs per capita increased by 179%—from roughly $100 per year to $279 (in 2024 dollars). Despite this growth, per capita participation and costs in FY2025 remained below their pre-pandemic peak in 2013, which coincided with the aftermath of the Great Recession and changes in eligibility and other policies stemming from the 2008 Farm Bill. SNAP is countercyclical, meaning that all else equal, the number of people receiving SNAP should rise during recessions because of increased unemployment and decline as the economy recovers, [though] overall SNAP participation has grown faster than changes in the unemployment rate alone would predict. Over the long run, and especially since FY2020 (due to the Thrifty Food Plan’s increase in the maximum SNAP benefit), costs per capita have not returned to prerecession levels after a period of high unemployment. In FY2023, the share of SNAP households containing an elderly person (36%) exceeded the share containing a child (34%) for the first time. This was a sharp departure from the early 2000s, when more than half of SNAP households contained a child and less than 20% included an elderly person (Figure 2).

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. SNAP participation doubled from 6% to 12% of the population between FY2000–FY2025, driven by policy expansions and demographic shifts outpacing.
  2. Real per capita SNAP costs rose 179% from $100 to $279 (2024 dollars) over 25 years, with the Thrifty Food.
  3. FY2025 SNAP enrollment remains 8–12% below the FY2013 peak despite 25-year growth, indicating countercyclical policy design successfully targets recession-driven need.

Related Articles:

  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Transfer payments made up 18% of all US personal income in 2022, up from 8% in 1970. Social Security/Medicare made up 56% of the increase from 1970 to 2022…
  • Poverty and Dependency in the United States, 1939–2023 — Btw 1939 and 1963, the % of Americans below LBJ’s absolute poverty line (3× the cost of a minimal meal plan), fell from 48.5 to 19.5, driven by rising market…
  • Government Benefit Programs Already Do A Lot To Help Low Income Families — A 2-adult, 3-child US family with $20,000 of market income receives at least $61,000 in annual benefits and has $79,000 of disposable income. That same family…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
  • Workforce
    • Poverty/Crime

Washington’s Growing Portfolio: Tracking U.S. Government Investments

AI Summary. The U.S. government has deployed $20.9bn across 16 direct equity deals, expanding beyond grants, loans, and tax incentives into direct ownership stakes. This approach has mobilized an additional $4.75bn in private co-investment alongside the government's positions.

Jonathan Hillman Council On Foreign Relations
Date Posted:
April 23, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Since January 2025, the USG has taken equity stakes totaling $20.9B in 16 American businesses. $8.6B, ~41% of the total, was invested in critical mineral miners and processors, while $8.9B, ~43% of the total, funded the government’s 10% stake in Intel.

Core argument: The U.S. government deployed $20.9bn in direct equity investments since January 2025, expanding beyond traditional grants and loans to drive.

Since January 2025, the U.S. government has invested $20.9 billion across sixteen deals involving direct ownership, broadening a toolkit that has traditionally focused on grants, loans, and tax incentives. The Department of Commerce has participated in six such deals, including taking a 10% stake in Intel. The Development Finance Corporation, the United States’ development bank, has executed three equity transactions in critical minerals, healthcare, and infrastructure. The Department of Defense leads the way with seven such deals. The U.S. government is also working with a range of partners and has mobilized an additional $4.75 billion in investment. Private co-investors include J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and others.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The U.S. government deployed $20.9bn in direct equity investments since January 2025, expanding beyond traditional grants and loans to drive.
  2. The Department of Defense leads with seven equity deals of the sixteen total, establishing direct ownership as a core national.
  3. Commerce Department’s 10% Intel stake exemplifies government equity participation in critical infrastructure, mobilizing private capital alongside public investment to strengthen.

Related Articles:

  • Industrial Policy and Economic Security — Chris Miller asks, “How much inefficiency should we swallow in exchange for the security of self-sufficiency?” He argues it’s “a tricky…
  • The Cold War and the U.S. Labor Market — Defense spending played a major role in sustaining tight labor markets for low-skill workers following the Second World War. Drops in procurement spending…
  • Capital Is Making a Comeback — Btw 1985-2021 the capital intensity of the American economy was relatively flat as a rise in intangible investment was offset by a decline in tangible…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
  • Politics
  • Productivity
    • Investment
  • Security

How Federal Spending is Distributed by Age

AI Summary. Retirees receive 62 cents of every age-assignable federal dollar, driven primarily by Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 80% of all federal spending directed at adults over 65.

Kent Smetters University of Pennsylvania
Date Posted:
April 2, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In 2025, of the 62.5% of Federal spending that is age-assignable on a per-capita basis, US retirees aged 65+ were given $43,700, working-age adults 26–64 got $7,300, and children and young adults got $4,300.

Core argument: Federal spending heavily favors retirees, who receive 38.6 percent of total outlays through Social Security, Medicare, and related programs.

We trace spending items within 52 general spending categories, totalling $7T for the 2025 Fiscal Year. We are able to classify a total of $4.4T across three broad age categories and assign the remaining $2.6T to an all-ages residual. Retirees (adults age 65 and older) receive $2.7T, equal to 38.6% of total federal outlays and 61.9% of age-assignable spending. Working-age adults (ages 26-64) receive $1.2T (27.9% of age-assignable), and children and young adults (under age 26) receive $449B (10.3%). The dominance of the retiree category reflects two programs above all others: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security directs $1.3T to retirees, and Medicare sends $835B. Together, they account for 80% of all age-assignable spending on older adults. But the retiree total extends beyond these two entitlements. Federal employee retirement benefits ($169B), housing assistance for older households, Medicaid long-term-care spending, and VA medical care all contribute, making the federal budget more retiree-focused than a Social Security–only lens would suggest.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Federal spending heavily favors retirees, who receive 38.6 percent of total outlays through Social Security, Medicare, and related programs.
  2. Working-age adults and children combined receive less than half the spending directed to retirees despite representing larger population segments.
  3. Social Security and Medicare alone account for 80 percent of all federal spending on older Americans, dominating the retiree budget.

Related Articles:

  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Transfer payments made up 18% of all US personal income in 2022, up from 8% in 1970. Social Security/Medicare made up 56% of the increase from 1970 to 2022…
  • France and Britain Are In Thrall To Pensioners — Since 1970, cumulative real income growth for pensioners in France and the UK has outpaced that of the workers who support them. French pensioners over the age…
  • The Budgetary Impact of the Abandonment of Federalism — John Cogan finds federal budget deficits are driven by items “originally considered to be the responsibility of state and local governments or private-sector…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Healthcare/Seniors
  • Workforce
    • Poverty/Crime

Has the United States Bent the Health Care Cost Curve?

David Cutler and Lev Klarnet Brookings Papers On Economic Activity
Date Posted:
March 30, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

In 2024, medical spending as a share of GDP was just above its 2010 level and 15% ($977B) below its 2010 forecast; 21% of the gap was due to technology, 24% to price reductions, and 11–27% to reforms such as prior authorization and higher deductibles.

Five factors are important in the slowdown in spending [Figure 16]. The first is technology-associated changes in health and site of care. These correspond to the subsequent innovations in our model. Together, technologies along these lines account for 21% of the overall cost slowdown and double that in Medicare. Second, long-run supply is more elastic than short-run supply, which lowers spending over time. This is particularly apparent in the impact of patent expiration for pharmaceuticals and in relative declines in imaging reimbursement. We estimate that greater long-run supply explains 6% of the spending slowdown. Third, a variety of market changes contribute to reduced and more elastic demand, including increased cost sharing paid by consumers, physicians not paid as much for using technologies, and insurers imposing restrictions on technology use - a rough guess is that these account for 11 to 27% of the spending slowdown. Fourth, the population is healthier in ways that reduce spending. This includes fewer hospitalizations for smoking-related conditions and reduced need for formal home health care. The birth rate has fallen as well, which reduces the need for care. We estimate improved population health explains 7% of the spending slowdown. A major component is slower price growth. Net of upcoding, we estimate lower price growth explains 24% of the spending slowdown.

Related Articles:

  • Sick as a Dog — Btw 1989 and 2019, US healthcare returns tracked the US tech sector’s returns, albeit with lower volatility. Since 2020, healthcare returns have stagnated as…
  • Saved by Medicaid: New Evidence on Health Insurance and Mortality from the Universe of Low-Income Adults — Exploiting state-level variation in the timing and adoption of Medicaid expansions, Wyse and Meyer infer that the mortality hazard of new enrollees (the…
  • The Great “Transfer”-mation — Transfer payments made up 18% of all US personal income in 2022, up from 8% in 1970. Social Security/Medicare made up 56% of the increase from 1970 to 2022…
  • Government Spending
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
  • Healthcare/Seniors
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms