“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…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
“…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
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“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 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
“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 offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
AI Summary.The Congressional Budget Office projects that if interest rates run 1.5 percentage points above its economic forecast, deficits would be $6tn larger over 2026–2036, reflecting a $4.9tn rise in net interest costs and $1.1tn in added debt-service costs. Debt held by the public would reach 133.1% of GDP in 2036, 12.9 percentage points above its baseline.
CBO StaffCongressional Budget OffIce
Date Posted:
If interest rates rise 150bp above CBO’s current extended baseline over 2026–2036 (which would leave the 10-year Treasury with a mean yield of 5.8% over that period), deficits would be $6T larger over the period.
How much would higher interest rates add to deficits and debt?
Core argument: CBO projects that interest rates 150 basis points above its economic forecast would make deficits a total of $6 trillion larger over the 2026–2036 period than in its baseline projections.
[If] interest rates are 150 basis points higher than those in CBO’s economic forecast—deficits are a total of $6 trillion larger over the 2026–2036 period than they are in the agency’s baseline projections. That increase in deficits is attributable to a $4.9 trillion increase in net interest costs resulting from higher interest rates on the amount of debt in CBO’s baseline projections and a $1.1 trillion increase in debt-service costs. In 2036, debt held by the public reaches 133.1% of GDP—12.9 percentage points more than debt that year in CBO’s baseline projections.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
CBO projects that interest rates 150 basis points above its economic forecast would make deficits a total of $6 trillion larger over the 2026–2036 period than in its baseline projections.
The $6 trillion deficit increase comprises a $4.9 trillion rise in net interest costs on the debt in CBO’s baseline projections plus a $1.1 trillion increase in debt-service costs.
Under the higher-interest-rate scenario, CBO projects debt held by the public reaches 133.1% of GDP in 2036, 12.9 percentage points above its baseline projection for that year.
Related Articles:
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036— The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit will grow from $1.9tn (5.8% of GDP) to $3.1tn (6.7%) over a decade, above the 3.8% averaged over the past 50 years, with rising net interest costs driving much of the increase. Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 101% to 120% of GDP.
How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence?— The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a permanent 0.5 percentage point increase in annual productivity growth would lower publicly held federal debt after 30 years by 39% of GDP, offsetting roughly half the projected rise from 101% of GDP to 175%. Higher revenue and slower spending growth outweigh higher interest costs.
Soaring Bond Yields, Gaping Deficits and Towering Debts: What Could Go Wrong?— An analysis of 22 rich countries estimates that if each refinanced its entire debt at current five-year bond yields, Britain would need the largest primary surplus to stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio, about 1.5%, followed by Italy at 1.4%, France at 1.2% and America at 1%.
AI Summary.In Spain, immigrant households work less, earn less, pay less in taxes, and are more likely to use social assistance than native households at every level of education. Non-EU-origin households are almost three times as likely to receive social assistance, with 6% of highly educated non-EU households receiving it versus 4.4% of all native households.
Nicholas EberstadtAmerican Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Eberstadt argues immigration at scale may not postpone the crisis of the European welfare state. In Spain, non-EU immigrant households are ~3x more likely to receive social assistance than natives at every education level, and draw larger amounts when they do.
Do immigrant households in Spain use more social assistance than natives?
Core argument: At every educational level, non-EU-origin households in Spain are almost three times as likely as native Spanish households to receive government social assistance, and average social assistance follows the same pattern.
Spain’s immigrants work less, earn less, pay less in taxes, and use more social assistance benefits. Maybe the nostrum that mass immigration is helping postpone the crisis of the European welfare state needs to be examined more carefully. Immigrant households are much more likely to utilize social program benefits than Spanish nationals, regardless of educational attainment. At every educational level, non-EU-origin households are almost three times as likely to be taking government social assistance as native Spaniards; so too average social assistance. Hardly less noteworthy: The incidence of social assistance, and average benefits per household, for high-education non-EU households (6%) is higher than for native Spanish households of all educational backgrounds (4.4%) even though most Spanish natives lack higher education.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
At every educational level, non-EU-origin households in Spain are almost three times as likely as native Spanish households to receive government social assistance, and average social assistance follows the same pattern.
High-education non-EU households in Spain take social assistance at a 6% rate, above the 4.4% rate for native Spanish households of all educational backgrounds, even though most Spanish natives lack higher education.
Spain’s immigrants work less, earn less, pay less in taxes, and use more social assistance benefits, which invites closer examination of the claim that mass immigration is helping postpone the crisis of the European welfare state.
Related Articles:
Depopulation Globally and in the Asia-Pacific: The Shape of Things to Come— Population aging and fertility below replacement levels are connected to a revolution in family structure in which families grow smaller, fewer people marry, and voluntary childlessness becomes common across countries. As a result, families become less able to bear the demands that may be placed on them.
Quo Vadis, Hispania? Part One— Official Spanish data show births exceeded deaths by barely 200,000 over the first quarter of the 21st century—less than 0.5% of Spain's population at the start—while immigration accounted for 98% of the country's population growth, the largest increase of any European Union member. Deaths have exceeded births since 2015.
Quo Vadis Hispania? Part Two— Spain's first- and second-generation immigrant population totals at least 12mm—nearly 9.5mm immigrants and over 2.5mm descendants—out of a population of roughly 49mm. The authors estimate over a third of Spain's under-40 population and nearly two-fifths of children under 5 are immigrants or the children of immigrants.
AI Summary.France's official retirement age for full benefits was 62 in 2023, versus 67 in Denmark and the US, and its average actual retirement age was the lowest in Western Europe while life expectancy at 65 reaches about 87, two years longer than in the US.
Paul KrugmanKrugman Wonks Out
Date Posted:
The sharp rise in the price of credit default swaps on French government debt implies a 1.2% of default over the next 5 years, which Krugman thinks “is too low” and cautions “France may have crossed the line from too big to fail to too big to save.”
Does France retire earlier than other wealthy countries despite longer lifespans?
Core argument: France’s official retirement age for full benefits was 62 in 2023, compared with 67 in both Denmark and the United States, and its average actual retirement age was the lowest in Western Europe.
France does stand out, even among fiscally troubled nations, in one main way: its persistent inability to get realistic about retirement. The official French retirement age — the age at which workers can collect full benefits — was only 62 in 2023. By comparison, the retirement age in Denmark was 67 (which is also the age in the U.S.). The average actual age of retirement, which is always lower than the statutory age because some people choose to accept reduced benefits, was lower in France than anywhere else in Western Europe. You don’t have to be a conservative to see France’s early retirement as unsustainable, especially given that French life expectancy at age 65 is about 87 years of age, 2 years longer than in the US. France’s reliance on the euro means that it’s all too easy to see how this loss of confidence could turn into an ugly crisis.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
France’s official retirement age for full benefits was 62 in 2023, compared with 67 in both Denmark and the United States, and its average actual retirement age was the lowest in Western Europe.
French life expectancy at age 65 is about 87, two years longer than in the United States, a gap that strengthens the case that France’s early retirement is unsustainable.
France’s reliance on the euro makes it easy to see how a loss of confidence could turn into an ugly crisis.
Related Articles:
France’s Marine Le Pen Pledges To Rein In Public Spending— France's National Rally party, historically a champion of big-state spending, has pledged to clean up the country's degraded public finances alongside tax cuts it describes as a fully financed "competitiveness shock." The party also proposed lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60 for those who start working young, estimating €15bn–€20bn in pension savings from correcting "unjust or inefficient" measures.
France is the Biggest Loser in the Global Rates Reset— French government borrowing costs now exceed the country's nominal income growth by about 2 percentage points, the most unfavorable gap between borrowing costs and growth in the rich world. By contrast, Spanish and Greek bond yields remain about 2 percentage points below their income growth rates.
Le Boomer Spread— The gap between French and German 10-year government bond yields exceeded 140 basis points, up from 40–50 basis points, which the author attributes to political choices favoring pensioners over bondholders, including a suspended pension reform leaving the minimum retirement age near 62. French over-65s hold higher average incomes than working-age people.
AI Summary.A global bond sell-off pushed long-term borrowing costs in the US, Europe and the UK to their highest levels in decades, with the 30-year US Treasury yield reaching 5.73%, its highest since 2002. Investors cited concerns over inflation and high public debt burdens, with French and Italian yields also rising.
Ian Smith, Emily Herbert and Kate DuguidFinancial Times
Date Posted:
The US 10-year Treasury yield fell to 5.29% from 5.36% after strong auction demand. The 30-year yield rose to as high as 5.73%, its highest level since 2002, before settling at 5.66%.
Are inflation and debt worries pushing long-term yields to decades-highs?
Core argument: The 30-year US Treasury yield rose as much as 0.09 percentage points to 5.73%, its highest level since 2002, before easing to 5.66% following a strong 10-year Treasury auction.
A sell-off in US government bonds eased after an auction of 10-year Treasuries drew strong demand in a sign that investors were seeking to lock in the highest yields since the turn of the millennium. US 10-year Treasury yields, a benchmark for borrowing costs in the world’s biggest economy, climbed as high as 5.36% in volatile trading early on Wednesday. But yields fell back sharply after a $39bn auction went smoothly, with the 10-year recently trading at 5.29%. France’s 10-year borrowing costs rose to 4.87%, heading back towards the post-2002 high reached this month, amid persistent worries that the Eurozone’s second-biggest economy was heading for a debt reckoning.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The 30-year US Treasury yield rose as much as 0.09 percentage points to 5.73%, its highest level since 2002, before easing to 5.66% following a strong 10-year Treasury auction.
A global bond sell-off pushed long-term borrowing costs in the US, Europe and the UK back to their highest levels in decades, as fears over inflation and high public debt burdens rattled investors.
French and Italian government bond yields each rose more than 0.1 percentage points, extending a series of wild swings in European government debt markets.
Related Articles:
France is the Biggest Loser in the Global Rates Reset— French government borrowing costs now exceed the country's nominal income growth by about 2 percentage points, the most unfavorable gap between borrowing costs and growth in the rich world. By contrast, Spanish and Greek bond yields remain about 2 percentage points below their income growth rates.
Soaring Bond Yields, Gaping Deficits and Towering Debts: What Could Go Wrong?— An analysis of 22 rich countries estimates that if each refinanced its entire debt at current five-year bond yields, Britain would need the largest primary surplus to stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio, about 1.5%, followed by Italy at 1.4%, France at 1.2% and America at 1%.
How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence?— The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a permanent 0.5 percentage point increase in annual productivity growth would lower publicly held federal debt after 30 years by 39% of GDP, offsetting roughly half the projected rise from 101% of GDP to 175%. Higher revenue and slower spending growth outweigh higher interest costs.
AI Summary.Federal Reserve Bank of New York researchers estimate that about 26% of a uniform tariff passes through into non-oil consumer goods prices over twelve months, with roughly 64% of that effect coming directly from higher import prices and the rest through domestic producers' input costs and markups. Pass-through into import prices is nearly immediate, while domestic price responses build gradually.
Mary Amiti,Sebastian Heise and David WeinsteinFederal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
FRBNY estimates that a uniform 10% tariff raised consumer-goods prices 2.6% after 12 months: 1.7pp directly via imported final goods, and 0.9pp mainly via higher imported-input costs for domestically produced goods, with the latter effect building over 9–12 months.
How much of a tariff reaches consumer prices within a year?
Core argument: Amiti, Heise, and Weinstein estimate that a uniform tariff passes through to non-oil consumer goods prices at roughly 26 percent over twelve months, with a 10 percent tariff raising prices 2.6 percentage points, 1.7 points of it via the direct import channel.
Tariff pass-through into U.S. import prices is nearly complete. Instrumenting realized duty rates with statutory tariffs to account for endogenous sourcing and exemptions, tariff pass-through into consumer-goods import prices is about 90.5%; a 10% increase in the duty rate raises import prices about 9.1%. At twelve months, a uniform 10% tariff raises consumer-goods prices 2.639%: 1.694pp through the direct channel, 0.770pp through marginal costs, and 0.175pp through strategic complementarity. Import-price pass-through is essentially immediate, while domestic prices adjust gradually; the contribution of the two indirect channels roughly doubles between six and twelve months, with much of the overall adjustment occurring within nine to twelve months. For the actual 2025–26 tariffs, the direct channel accounts for about 70% of the estimated effect; the marginal-cost channel accounts for about 22%, with strategic complementarity accounting for the remainder. Because the regressions include date fixed effects, the tariff contribution is identified relative to less-exposed goods and should be read as illustrative rather than as the absolute contribution to aggregate goods CPI.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Amiti, Heise, and Weinstein estimate that a uniform tariff passes through to non-oil consumer goods prices at roughly 26 percent over twelve months, with a 10 percent tariff raising prices 2.6 percentage points, 1.7 points of it via the direct import channel.
The two indirect channels — marginal costs from imported inputs (0.77 percentage points) and strategic complementarity in domestic markups (0.17 points) — account for 36 percent of the total effect and roughly double between six and twelve months after tariff implementation.
Applied to the actual 2025–26 tariff schedule, the authors estimate the cumulative tariff contribution to goods CPI reached about 2.9 percentage points by February 2026, with import-price pass-through near 90 percent and retail pass-through of 0.56.
Related Articles:
The State of U.S. Tariffs July 24, 2026— The average statutory US tariff rate stands at 11.1% and, under current law including scheduled increases, is projected to reach 11.8% by year-end. The authors estimate current-law tariffs will raise consumer prices by about 0.7% and generate roughly $1.9tn over ten years, with revenue somewhat lower after accounting for tariffs' negative effect on economic output.
Who Is Paying for the 2025 U.S. Tariffs?— The authors estimate that 94% of U.S. tariff costs were borne domestically over the first eight months of 2025, with a 10% tariff associated with only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices. Pass-through into U.S. import prices later declined to 86%, shifting more of the burden to foreign exporters.
Demand-Driven Inflation— Demand and supply curves estimated from pre-pandemic data imply relatively flat demand curves in the US and euro area, so adverse supply shifts would produce large output losses but comparatively little inflation. The authors argue explaining the observed combination of high inflation and output requires outward demand shifts, including accommodative monetary policy alongside fiscal expansion.
AI Summary.Incorporating tariffs into the standard cost-of-capital framework, researchers estimate US tariffs raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new investment by 4.2 percentage points to 17.0%, with equipment hit hardest at 26.1 percentage points. That increase offsets the 3.5 percentage point reduction from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Kyle Pomerleau, Thomas Brosy, Robert McClelland and John WongAmerican Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
The IEEPA tariffs through January 2026 raised equipment’s user cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%. With depreciation unchanged, the required pre-tax net return rose 1.6pp, 4.3% to 5.9%, a tax at purchase that expensing cannot eliminate.
Do tariffs raise the effective tax rate on new investment?
Core argument: Tariffs in force before the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new US investment by 4.2 points, from 12.8 percent to 17.0 percent, and the cost of capital by 2.7 percent, the AEI authors estimate.
The standard Hall-Jorgenson user cost of capital framework defines the minimum gross required return on an additional unit of capital. The service price of capital (SS) is the minimum pretax gross return required on a new investment; the minimum pretax net return (ρrho) equals SS minus economic depreciation. Consider imported equipment requiring a 25% gross return: 20% to cover depreciation and 5% shareholders’ demanded return. A 10% tariff raises the cost of capital to 27.5%. [Thus the minimum pretax net return—the hurdle rate—rises from 5% to 7.5%]. For equipment, tariffs raise the cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%: 86% of the burden is direct, 14% indirect. 100% bonus depreciation reduced the equipment METR from 19.1% to 4.1%; tariffs raised it to 30.3%, more than offsetting the tax cut.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Tariffs in force before the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new US investment by 4.2 points, from 12.8 percent to 17.0 percent, and the cost of capital by 2.7 percent, the AEI authors estimate.
Equipment bore the largest estimated burden, with its marginal effective tax rate rising 26.1 points from 4.1 percent to 30.3 percent and its cost of capital up 9.0 percent, while mainframes and PCs saw a 26.6 percent cost-of-capital increase.
The estimated 4.2 point tariff-driven increase in the marginal effective tax rate offset the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s 3.5 point reduction, leaving a net 0.8 point rise economy-wide and an 11.1 point net increase for equipment.
Related Articles:
Blunt Tariffs Undermine Efforts To Reshore High-Tech Manufacturing— Computer and electronic products manufacturers import 37% of their intermediate inputs and capital equipment, chemical manufacturers 33%, and transportation equipment manufacturers 27%. Broad tariffs may push some sourcing domestically over time, but many inputs will simply cost more, making American manufacturers less competitive globally.
Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States— The authors find that the combined effect of U.S.-China trade war import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies on employment in exposed U.S. locations was at best a wash and possibly mildly negative, while residents of tariff-protected areas became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote Republican.
Tariffs are Dumb Enough to (Almost) Work— A universal 15% tariff on imported goods could raise roughly $300–$400bn annually, a fraction of what a value-added tax would generate but real revenue given U.S. imports of about $4tn. The author argues tariffs are a poorly designed form of consumption tax that could build political groundwork for replacing them with a more efficient value-added tax.
AI Summary.The 10-year US Treasury yield has risen past its 2007 high to its highest level since 2002, with the latest move driven by a US services survey showing services inflation proving intractable. The share of supply managers reporting rising prices climbed to its highest level since the post-pandemic surge.
John AuthersBloomberg
Date Posted:
The US 10-year Treasury yield is at its highest level since 2002. Authers notes: “A move of this magnitude should be a problem for equities. It hasn’t been…. On the face of it, the big tech companies are proving immune to the rising cost of money” likely due to rapidly growing earnings.
Are rising long-term bond yields driven by stubborn services inflation?
Core argument: The 10-year Treasury yield has broken above its 2007 high, the year a bond sell-off triggered the Global Financial Crisis, reaching its highest level since 2002.
The 10-year Treasury yield has now broken through its high from 2007, when a bond sell-off triggered the Global Financial Crisis. It’s now the highest since 2002. The latest impulse upward came from the ISM Services report for the US. Services inflation is proving intractable, and the proportion of supply managers complaining about rising prices climbed to its highest since the post-pandemic surge. With the exception of a few months at the top of the oil price spike in 2008, and in the brief spasm that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the reading is the strongest since the series began in 1997.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The 10-year Treasury yield has broken above its 2007 high, the year a bond sell-off triggered the Global Financial Crisis, reaching its highest level since 2002.
The ISM Services report drove the latest upward move in yields, with services inflation proving intractable and the share of supply managers reporting rising prices climbing to its highest since the post-pandemic surge.
Apart from a few months at the peak of the 2008 oil price spike and the brief episode after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the ISM Services prices reading is the strongest since the series began in 1997.
Related Articles:
Foreign Capital Flows Into US Stocks Hit Record As Appetite For Debt Fades— Foreign investors made a record $942bn in net purchases of US stocks and investment fund shares over 12 months, the highest rolling 12-month total in Treasury data going back to 1985. Foreign demand for US debt securities moved in the opposite direction, falling to a net $188bn in the second quarter from $314bn in the first.
US Focus: The Effect Of Soaring Profits— US nominal pre-tax corporate profits in the national accounts grew 23% over the past year, a pace not seen outside post-recession spikes since the mid-2000s. Wider margins were the key driver, as domestic profit growth far exceeded the 8% rise in corporate value added, pushing margins near all-time highs while the labor share hit new lows.
A Catalyst For The AI Bubble Break— Historically, controlling for valuations, a 1% rise in the share of the market represented by initial public offerings has been associated with roughly a 4% decline in prices. With large artificial-intelligence company listings expected and share issuance exceeding buybacks, equity supply could shift from shrinking about 1% a year to growing near 5%, implying returns roughly 20% below average.
AI Summary.France's National Rally party, historically a champion of big-state spending, has pledged to clean up the country's degraded public finances alongside tax cuts it describes as a fully financed "competitiveness shock." The party also proposed lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60 for those who start working young, estimating €15bn–€20bn in pension savings from correcting "unjust or inefficient" measures.
Leila Abboud, Sarah White and Ian SmithFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Marine Le Pen has proposed a referendum that would cap national debt at 60% of GDP and reduce the public deficit by .5pp annually to reach “close to a balanced budget.” At the same time she has also proposed to reduce the retirement age from 62 to 60.
Is a populist party shifting toward fiscal restraint and tax cuts?
Core argument: Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National estimates it could save €15bn–€20bn on pensions spending by correcting what it calls “unjust or inefficient measures” in the current system, helping fund its plans.
Long a champion of big-state spending to protect the working class, Le Pen in recent months has swung behind the idea that France needs a major clean-up of its degraded public finances. Her party, Rassemblement National (RN), also pledged tax cuts on Tuesday in what it said would be a fully financed “competitiveness shock” from 2027. Allianz chief economist Ludovic Subran called the proposals “voodoo economics.” “The RN now presents itself as the party of fiscal rectitude, but the route to its targets is unclear. The savings figures are disputed,” he said. Delivering the announced savings would be impossible unless the RN reversed tack to lower the retirement age.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National estimates it could save €15bn–€20bn on pensions spending by correcting what it calls “unjust or inefficient measures” in the current system, helping fund its plans.
Rassemblement National pledged tax cuts as part of what it said would be a fully financed “competitiveness shock” from 2027, alongside lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60 for those who begin working at a young age.
Le Pen, long a champion of big-state spending to protect the working class, has swung behind the idea that France needs a major clean-up of its degraded public finances.
Related Articles:
France is the Biggest Loser in the Global Rates Reset— French government borrowing costs now exceed the country's nominal income growth by about 2 percentage points, the most unfavorable gap between borrowing costs and growth in the rich world. By contrast, Spanish and Greek bond yields remain about 2 percentage points below their income growth rates.
Le Boomer Spread— The gap between French and German 10-year government bond yields exceeded 140 basis points, up from 40–50 basis points, which the author attributes to political choices favoring pensioners over bondholders, including a suspended pension reform leaving the minimum retirement age near 62. French over-65s hold higher average incomes than working-age people.
Soaring Yields Find Europe’s Weak Spot— A rapid rise in long-term US Treasury yields has highlighted vulnerabilities elsewhere, notably France, where risks are elevated. Because France is in the euro zone, any crisis there would extend to the currency area, and European stocks have sold off alongside a weakening euro.
