“…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
A broad archive on economic output and the forces that shape it, including growth, business cycles, inflation, housing, trade, and financial markets. Use these curated charts and research summaries to follow changes in the U.S. and global economy.
AI Summary.A study of US private firms finds that a one-standard-deviation rise in a firm's financing shortfall is associated with a 45% higher likelihood of going public. After an initial public offering, disagreement among lenders about a firm's default risk falls, borrowing costs drop by 45 basis points, and debt rises more than 50% relative to comparable firms by year three.
Andres Almazan, Nathan Swem, Sheridan Titman and Gregory WeitznerNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
A study of 100k+ private nonfinancial firms (2012–23), including 433 IPOs, suggests listing improves access to debt as well as equity. After listing, lenders’ risk assessments converge and bank borrowing costs fall 45 basis points, controlling for assessed risk.
Do financing shortfalls drive private firms to go public?
Core argument: A one-standard-deviation increase in a US private firm’s financing deficit is associated with a 45% higher likelihood of going public, controlling for size, growth, leverage, investment, and industry–location–time effects.
A one-standard-deviation increase in a firm’s financing deficit is associated with a 45% higher likelihood of going public [controlling for size, growth, leverage, investment, and industry–location–time effects]. Consistent with a reduction in asymmetric information, we find that dispersion in PD [probability of default as perceived by disparate market participations] drops,beginning immediately after the IPO. [Note that] we calculate PD dispersion only for banks present prior to the IPO]. We find that after controlling for these risk assessments, firms’ borrowing costs drop by 45 bps after going public. [controlling for bank–firm and bank–quarter fixed effects]. Figure 7 shows that in the first year, there is a statistically significant drop in leverage of about 4 pp.. However, the point estimate returns to zero by year three. Figure 6 shows that IPO firms increase their debt by more than 50% relative to control firms by year three following the IPO. [An important caveat is that our post-IPO estimates capture both treatment and selection effects].
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
A one-standard-deviation increase in a US private firm’s financing deficit is associated with a 45% higher likelihood of going public, controlling for size, growth, leverage, investment, and industry–location–time effects.
Dispersion in the probability of default perceived by banks present before the IPO drops immediately after it, and after controlling for these risk assessments, firms’ borrowing costs fall 45 basis points following the IPO, with bank–firm and bank–quarter fixed effects.
IPO firms’ leverage falls a statistically significant 4 percentage points in the first year, with the point estimate returning to zero by year three, while their debt rises more than 50% relative to control firms by year three; these post-IPO estimates capture both treatment and selection effects.
Related Articles:
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.
The Coming Mega-IPO Flow & Funding Problem of 2026— Adjusted for inflation, SpaceX alone would rank as the second-largest initial public offering ever, behind Saudi Aramco, and three such listings together would exceed the entire 1995–2000 dot-com wave. Funding that equity supply requires selling existing holdings, and index rule changes make passive funds forced buyers, pressuring large-cap technology stocks.
The Deep End: 2025 Alternative Investments Review— In venture capital, only consistently investing with top-quartile managers outperformed the S&P 500, while the median manager at best matched public equity markets and fourth-quartile managers destroyed value relative to equities. Fees are part of the issue: an 11.7% annualized NASDAQ 100 return falls to 7.4% under a 2%/20% fee structure.
AI Summary.China's exports rose 36% from a year earlier and imports 31%, widening its monthly trade surplus to almost $134bn and putting the annual surplus on track to exceed the $1.2tn record. High-tech shipments jumped almost 64%, which Bloomberg Economics estimates accounted for about half of total export growth.
James Mayger and Paul AbelskyBloomberg
Date Posted:
China’s goods trade surplus is on track to exceed 2025’s $1.2T. China’s trade surplus with the EU is up 21% y/y.
Is China's trade surplus heading to a new record on export growth?
Core argument: China’s exports rose 36% year-over-year in September, the fastest pace since February, while imports rose 31%, widening the monthly trade surplus to almost $134 billion and exceeding every forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists.
China’s export growth surged the most since February to drive global imbalances to new highs, with its trade surplus this year on track to exceed the $1.2 trillion record set in 2025. Shipments abroad soared 36% last month from a year earlier and imports jumped 31%, data released by China’s General Administration of Customs showed on Wednesday. As a result, the surplus for September widened to almost $134 billion, exceeding every forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists. The imbalance has continued to balloon since US President Donald Trump ramped up tariffs soon after reclaiming the White House at the start of last year, showing the limits of the policy in the middle of the AI buildout. Shipments of high-tech products soared almost 64% in September, which Bloomberg Economics estimates contributed around half of China’s total export growth.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
China’s exports rose 36% year-over-year in September, the fastest pace since February, while imports rose 31%, widening the monthly trade surplus to almost $134 billion and exceeding every forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists.
China’s trade surplus this year is on track to exceed the $1.2 trillion record set in 2025, with the imbalance continuing to grow after US President Donald Trump raised tariffs at the start of last year.
Chinese shipments of high-tech products soared almost 64% in September, contributing around half of total export growth, according to Bloomberg Economics estimates.
Related Articles:
The World Should Not Ignore China’s Undervalued Currency— China's reported current account surplus of about 4% of GDP is roughly 3 percentage points above the International Monetary Fund's estimated norm, implying a currency undervaluation of about 20%. Adjusting for surging gold imports and a misreported investment income deficit would lift the surplus to about 6% of GDP and the estimated undervaluation to 30–35%.
World Economic Outlook: Resilience Under Strain, Urgent Choices— Global current account balances widened to about 3.8% of world GDP, driven mainly by a rise in China's surplus to about 0.6% of world GDP (3.7% of China's GDP) and larger surpluses across other Asian economies, while the United States remained the largest deficit economy at about 1% of world GDP. Imbalances are projected to remain elevated.
Understanding Global Imbalances— The US, China, Germany, and Japan account for roughly two-thirds of global current account imbalances, with the US deficit at 4% of GDP financed by capital inflows into dollar assets. The average duration of a surplus or deficit spell roughly doubled since the 1980s, building large net foreign asset and liability positions.
AI Summary.US consumer prices rose 3.7% year over year in September, up from 3.4% in August and above economists' 3.6% forecast, with core prices excluding food and energy up 2.6%. Prices rose faster than average hourly earnings, which increased 3%, meaning many Americans' real incomes are falling.
Konrad PutzierWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Inflation accelerated in September, rising to 3.7% annualized from August’s 3.4%. Real average hourly earnings fell .7% year over year.
Is inflation accelerating faster than wages, cutting real incomes?
Core argument: U.S. consumer prices rose 3.7% in September from a year earlier, the Labor Department said, up from August’s 3.4% and above the 3.6% expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.
Consumer prices were up 3.7% in September from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Wednesday, hotter than August’s gain of 3.4%. That was above the 3.6% rise expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. Core prices excluding food and energy rose 2.6%, above forecasts for a 2.5% increase. Month over month, core prices rose by 0.3%, surprising economists who had expected a 0.2% increase. High prices have been a political flashpoint for Americans, who have grown fed up with five years of inflation. Prices rose much faster in September than average hourly earnings, which increased 3% from a year earlier. That means many Americans are seeing their real incomes fall.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
U.S. consumer prices rose 3.7% in September from a year earlier, the Labor Department said, up from August’s 3.4% and above the 3.6% expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.
Core prices excluding food and energy rose 2.6% year over year in September, above forecasts of 2.5%, and 0.3% month over month against expectations of 0.2%.
September prices rose much faster than average hourly earnings, which increased 3% from a year earlier, meaning many Americans are seeing real incomes fall.
Related Articles:
Do Voters Punish Inflation or Pay Cuts? Inflation and Real Wages in U.S. Elections— An analysis of U.S. counties estimates that where wages grew faster than prices, voters supported the incumbent party more, while counties with larger real wage losses than average shifted more toward the opposition. A one-standard-deviation larger real wage loss is associated with shifts of roughly 0.10 and 0.19 percentage points in vote share and margin.
Sticky Wage Norms and the Real Wage Cost of Unexpected Inflation— Firms set nominal wage increases by round-number rules—about 42% of increases below 6% fell within 0.01 percentage points of a whole or half number—and these rules rose only from about 2.7% to 3.5% as inflation peaked near 7%, contributing to falling real wages for job stayers.
The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly— Variation in the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index that inflation and unemployment cannot explain is strongly correlated with growth in consumer borrowing costs, such as mortgage and car loan rates. The authors estimate that including interest payments and homeownership costs in the consumer price index would raise measured inflation from 3% to 9%.
AI Summary.The United States generates almost twice as much economic output per dollar invested as China, the opposite of what would be expected from a mature developed economy versus a fast-growing economy catching up. The gap points to overexuberance in Chinese investment.
Robin Rivaton and Ben SouthwoodWorks In Progress
Date Posted:
The US generates ~2x as much output per dollar of capital as China. Rivaton and Southwood argue that relentless competition among Chinese subnational governments, who account for ~85% of public expenditure, drives industrial growth at the cost of reduced capital efficiency.
Does China get less economic output per dollar invested than America?
Core argument: The United States obtains nearly twice as much GDP from every dollar invested as China does, measured by the capital efficiency ratio of output to invested capital stock.
Overexuberance is visible in economic data. Interest rates that banks pay to depositors are capped, giving banks artificially cheap capital. Entrepreneurs may be backed to attempt extremely unlikely, borderline schemes. The capital efficiency ratio measures how much output a country gets out of the capital stock it has invested – how many dollars of GDP a country can buy with a dollar of investment. The United States gets almost twice as much economic output out of every dollar it invests as China does, precisely the opposite of what we would expect from a developed country with a mature economy versus a rapidly growing country playing catch up.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The United States obtains nearly twice as much GDP from every dollar invested as China does, measured by the capital efficiency ratio of output to invested capital stock.
China’s capital efficiency inverts the expected pattern, in which a rapidly growing catch-up economy would extract more output per dollar of investment than a mature developed economy.
Overexuberance is visible in Chinese macroeconomic data, with China’s investment generating less economic output per dollar than that of the United States.
Related Articles:
The Year of the Trojan Fire Horse: China’s Imbalanced Economy and Unrelenting Mercantilism— About 30% of Chinese industrial companies are unprofitable "zombies" kept alive by subsidies far larger than those elsewhere, rather than exiting amid falling industrial producer prices. Countries with large increases in manufactured imports from China also saw slowdowns in domestic manufacturing, including declining manufacturing shares of output across most of Southeast Asia.
Xi’s Superpower Ambitions Fuel a Dangerous Debt Spiral in China— China's credit to the nonfinancial sector—corporate, government and household borrowing—topped 300% of gross domestic product, 60 percentage points above its end-2019 level and larger than in the US, according to the Bank for International Settlements. The International Monetary Fund estimates broad Chinese government debt, including local financing vehicles, reached 127% of GDP, up from 98% in 2020.
Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?— China's technological progress and infrastructure do not refute claims of overinvestment, since overinvestment often produces real physical assets and technological gains yet still counts as overinvestment when it generates less real value than the resources, subsidies, and transfers it consumes. When such losses are capitalized, assets are carried above their real economic value.
AI Summary.Global current account balances widened to about 3.8% of world GDP, driven mainly by a rise in China's surplus to about 0.6% of world GDP (3.7% of China's GDP) and larger surpluses across other Asian economies, while the United States remained the largest deficit economy at about 1% of world GDP. Imbalances are projected to remain elevated.
IMF StaffInternational Monetary Fund
Date Posted:
Global current account balances increased further in 2025 to ~3.8% of global GDP. The IMF calculates the rise was driven by a sharp increase in China’s surplus to ~.6% of global GDP (3.7% of China’s). The US deficit was ~1% of global GDP.
Are global current account imbalances widening as China's surplus grows?
Core argument: Global current account balances widened to about 3.8% of world GDP in 2025, continuing the upward trend since the pandemic and reversing the post-global-financial-crisis decline.
Global current account balances increased further in 2025 to about 3.8% of world GDP, continuing the upward trend observed since the pandemic and reversing the decline following the global financial crisis. The widening was driven primarily by a sharp increase in China’s surplus, which increased to about 0.6% of world GDP (3.7% of China’s GDP), alongside larger surpluses in several Asian economies, whereas the euro area surplus narrowed and oil exporters’ surpluses declined. At the same time, the United States remained the world’s largest deficit economy, with a current account deficit of about 1% of world GDP. Early 2026 trade data indicate that global imbalances are expected to increase slightly this year and are projected to remain elevated in 2027, with further increases in trade surpluses in China and other Asian exporters and weaker balances in the United States and the euro area.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Global current account balances widened to about 3.8% of world GDP in 2025, continuing the upward trend since the pandemic and reversing the post-global-financial-crisis decline.
China’s surplus rose to about 0.6% of world GDP (3.7% of China’s GDP), driving the widening alongside larger surpluses in several Asian economies, while the euro area surplus narrowed and oil exporters’ surpluses declined.
The United States remained the world’s largest deficit economy at a current account deficit of about 1% of world GDP, and early 2026 trade data indicate global imbalances are expected to increase slightly in 2026 and remain elevated in 2027.
Related Articles:
Understanding Global Imbalances— The US, China, Germany, and Japan account for roughly two-thirds of global current account imbalances, with the US deficit at 4% of GDP financed by capital inflows into dollar assets. The average duration of a surplus or deficit spell roughly doubled since the 1980s, building large net foreign asset and liability positions.
Who Will Win The War Of Neo-Mercantilists?— China's manufacturing export surplus is around 2% of world GDP, roughly twice the largest surplus Japan ever ran, while domestic demand has stalled. Unexplained negative net income of about $125bn on its $4tn in net foreign assets, versus an expected $100bn surplus, supports the argument that the renminbi is about 30% undervalued.
The U.S. Trade Deficit: Myths and Realities— Taxing capital inflows would weaken the dollar but could raise domestic interest rates and depress investment, harming long-term growth, while an interest rate cut absent recession would be inflationary and erode any real depreciation needed to durably improve the trade balance. Fiscal restraint could weaken the dollar and reduce the trade deficit.
AI Summary.China's credit to the nonfinancial sector—corporate, government and household borrowing—topped 300% of gross domestic product, 60 percentage points above its end-2019 level and larger than in the US, according to the Bank for International Settlements. The International Monetary Fund estimates broad Chinese government debt, including local financing vehicles, reached 127% of GDP, up from 98% in 2020.
Brian SpegeleWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Credit to the Chinese nonfinancial sector was over 300% of GDP in 2025, 60pp above its 2019 level, driven by borrowing and slower GDP growth. It has risen by more than $43T since late 2012.
How much has China's debt risen relative to GDP?
Core argument: China’s credit to the nonfinancial sector topped 300% of GDP last year, 60 percentage points above end-2019 and far above the U.S. level, according to the Bank for International Settlements.
Last year, China’s credit to the nonfinancial sector—a broad measure of corporate, government and household borrowings—topped 300% of gross domestic product, 60 percentage points higher than at the end of 2019 and now far bigger than in the U.S. It has jumped by more than $43 trillion since Xi took office in late 2012, according to the Bank for International Settlements. China’s government says its debts are under control. Central government borrowings were only around 30% of GDP in recent years, small compared with federal debts in the U.S. A broader gauge of overall Chinese government debt—including official local borrowings as well as the debts of these local government financing vehicles—ballooned to an estimated 127% of GDP last year, according to the International Monetary Fund, up from 98% in 2020.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
China’s credit to the nonfinancial sector topped 300% of GDP last year, 60 percentage points above end-2019 and far above the U.S. level, according to the Bank for International Settlements.
Chinese nonfinancial-sector credit has risen by more than $43 trillion since Xi Jinping took office in late 2012, according to the Bank for International Settlements.
The International Monetary Fund estimates broad Chinese government debt, including official local borrowings and local government financing vehicles, reached 127% of GDP last year, up from 98% in 2020, while central government borrowings were around 30% of GDP.
Related Articles:
Why Global Imbalances Matter— Countries running persistent trade surpluses, such as China, Germany and Japan, have built their economies around an excess supply of tradeable goods and services, leaving them dependent on deficit countries to absorb it. That dependence gives deficit countries bargaining power and exposes surplus countries to pressure to expand domestic demand.
Using China’s Central Government Balance Sheet to “Clean up” Local Government Debt Is a Bad Idea— The International Monetary Fund attributes more than half of the rise in the global debt-to-GDP ratio since 2008 to China, whose ratio is exceeded only by Japan's among major economies and is unusually high for a middle-income country. The author argues this debt reflects extensive unrecognized losses hidden in collective balance sheets, and that delaying recognition raises the eventual cost.
Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?— China's technological progress and infrastructure do not refute claims of overinvestment, since overinvestment often produces real physical assets and technological gains yet still counts as overinvestment when it generates less real value than the resources, subsidies, and transfers it consumes. When such losses are capitalized, assets are carried above their real economic value.
AI Summary.China's export growth accelerated after its currency depreciated, which the author argues is evidence that exchange rate moves, not just domestic demand, drive its trade surplus. Because Chinese domestic demand growth no longer pulls in imports, the author contends there is no realistic path to balanced trade without a stronger renminbi.
Brad SetserCouncil on Foreign Relations
Date Posted:
China’s export growth accelerated following the RMB’s depreciation in 2022, underscoring the role of exchange rates as a factor in external adjustment. Since rising domestic demand no longer lifts imports, Setser argues, reducing China’s trade surplus will require a stronger RMB.
Does balancing China's trade require a stronger currency?
Core argument: China requires a 1.5 percentage point contribution from net exports to growth each year, putting it on a collision course with trading partners absent a currency correction that supports more balanced trade even without trade restrictions.
The best evidence that exports responded to changes in the currency, and not simply to changes in the path of China’s internal demand, is the acceleration in China’s export growth after the RMB’s depreciation over the course of 2022. Those who believe the path of internal demand is critical to rebalancing and that exchange rate moves are secondary need to explain how an acceleration in domestic demand would, on its own, lead China’s external accounts to adjust. One important, stylized fact about China is that domestic demand growth is no longer feeding over to import growth (ex-gold, that is). Bottom line: China, which needs a 1.5 percentage point contribution from net exports every year, is on a collision course with its trading partners without a currency correction that provides the basis for more balanced trade even in the absence of trade restrictions. And there isn’t a realistic path towards balance that doesn’t involve a stronger RMB; there aren’t, as Paul Krugman once put it, immaculate transfers.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
China requires a 1.5 percentage point contribution from net exports to growth each year, putting it on a collision course with trading partners absent a currency correction that supports more balanced trade even without trade restrictions.
The acceleration in China’s export growth following the renminbi’s depreciation over 2022 is the best evidence that exports responded to the currency rather than to the path of China’s internal demand.
Domestic demand growth in China no longer feeds through to import growth, excluding gold, and no realistic path toward external balance avoids a stronger renminbi.
Related Articles:
The Year of the Trojan Fire Horse: China’s Imbalanced Economy and Unrelenting Mercantilism— About 30% of Chinese industrial companies are unprofitable "zombies" kept alive by subsidies far larger than those elsewhere, rather than exiting amid falling industrial producer prices. Countries with large increases in manufactured imports from China also saw slowdowns in domestic manufacturing, including declining manufacturing shares of output across most of Southeast Asia.
Why the World Needs to Force China’s Yuan to Revalue— Goods prices have fallen in China since the pandemic while rising in developed markets, driving the inflation-adjusted yuan exchange rate sharply lower and increasing China's competitiveness. Goldman Sachs economists estimate China's price discount versus foreign peers at 32% in electric vehicles, 38% in refrigerators and 53% in shoes.
The World Should Not Ignore China’s Undervalued Currency— China's reported current account surplus of about 4% of GDP is roughly 3 percentage points above the International Monetary Fund's estimated norm, implying a currency undervaluation of about 20%. Adjusting for surging gold imports and a misreported investment income deficit would lift the surplus to about 6% of GDP and the estimated undervaluation to 30–35%.
AI Summary.Foreign investors made roughly $1.5tn in net purchases of US equities from the start of 2024 through July, with chipmaking economies like South Korea and Taiwan helping fund American tech firms' AI buildout. Bloomberg Economics estimates about 20% of foreign US equity holdings were AI-related in 2025, versus roughly 10% in 2019.
Shawn Donnan, Estelle Ou and Jorgelina Do RosarioBloomberg
Date Posted:
The profits of South Korean and Taiwanese firms are flowing into AI-related US equities. A Bloomberg analysis found ~20% of all foreign holdings of US equities were in AI-related sectors, up from ~10% in 2019.
Are foreign investors funding America's AI buildout?
Core argument: Foreign investors held roughly $4.9 trillion of US-listed shares in AI-centered industries at the end of June, a sum roughly equivalent to Germany’s annual GDP, according to Bloomberg Economics’ analysis of Treasury data.
The AI boom is creating massive demand for high-end chips and new pools of savings in places that make them like South Korea and Taiwan which are flowing to fund American tech companies and their $9 trillion AI build out. Foreign investors made roughly $1.5 trillion in net purchases of US equities alone since the beginning of 2024 through the end of July. A Bloomberg Economics analysis of Treasury data shows that in 2025 roughly 20% of all foreign holdings of US equities were in AI-related sectors, up from roughly 10% in 2019. That number has grown with soaring valuations since then. But even assuming that 20% level, foreign investors had about $4.9 trillion of exposure to US-listed shares of companies in industries at the center of the AI boom at the end of June. That’s roughly equivalent to Germany’s annual GDP.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Foreign investors held roughly $4.9 trillion of US-listed shares in AI-centered industries at the end of June, a sum roughly equivalent to Germany’s annual GDP, according to Bloomberg Economics’ analysis of Treasury data.
AI-related sectors accounted for roughly 20% of all foreign holdings of US equities in 2025, up from roughly 10% in 2019, per Bloomberg Economics’ analysis of Treasury data.
Foreign investors made roughly $1.5 trillion in net purchases of US equities from the start of 2024 through the end of July, with savings from chipmaking economies such as South Korea and Taiwan flowing to American tech companies and their $9 trillion AI build-out.
Related Articles:
Califoreboding— A basket of 42 AI stocks accounts for 60%-80% of all S&P 500 earnings growth, price returns and capital spending, while 60% of S&P 500 stocks sit 20% or more below their highs and only 30% outperform the index. AI-related construction spending has risen 38%, the only positive trend as manufacturing, commercial real estate and residential construction decline.
Financing the AI Buildout— The authors estimate roughly 57 gigawatts of operating US data center capacity against a planned development pipeline of about 509 gigawatts, which is not a completion forecast since projects may be delayed, scaled back, or abandoned. Their central scenario has 182.8 gigawatts of added capacity becoming operational through 2032, 117.2 gigawatts completed later, and 226.9 gigawatts never completed.
One Hundred Years in the U.S. Stock Markets— Over a century, U.S. publicly traded stocks generated roughly $91tn in shareholder wealth enhancement, with returns strongly positively skewed and dominated by a relatively small number of high-performing firms. Because most possible outcomes fall below the mean in a skewed distribution, the authors argue financial planning should focus on median outcomes or the full distribution.
