“…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
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“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
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“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 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 full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
AI Summary.A benchmark designed to measure fluid reasoning rather than memorized knowledge — where earlier AI models scored near zero — has been solved at human-level performance by a new AI system. The benchmark's creator now expects true artificial general intelligence to arrive before 2030.
Michael CembalestJ.P. Morgan
Date Posted:
Newly released Chat GPT-6 scored 62% on Francoise Chollet’s fluid human intelligence test when undirected by humans and 99% when directed.
Does solving one reasoning benchmark mean artificial general intelligence is near?
In 2019, Francois Chollet created the ARC-AGI, an exam designed to show the gulf between AI model memorized answers and the fluid intelligence that people have. The exam assesses the ability to quickly acquire skills and solve unfamiliar problems from first principles, rather than just memorizing enormous amounts of training data and regurgitating information. GPT3 scored a zero on ARC-AGI-1 (humans score 60%-70%), and OpenAI o1 scored just 3% on ARC-AGI-2. In March 2026, Chollet and the ARC Prize Foundation released ARC-AGI-3, a harder set of problems that shifted from static to dynamic interactive video challenges. GPT-6 Astra scored 62% with a standard harness and 99% with a Provider Adapter harness (which uses OpenAI’s context management features to preserve and reuse the model’s reasoning between interactions).
Related Articles:
The AI Re-Acceleration That Wasn’t— 615). Claims of re-acceleration result from cherry-picking frontier observations, selecting a breakpoint, ignoring variance collapse, and fitting separate lines on either side.
Why .400 Hitters Disappeared — and What It Means for AI— As AI model performance converges toward a ceiling, relative gains per improvement cycle shrink, transforming frontier capability from a pricing moat into a commodity where price becomes the primary differentiator and margin pressure intensifies across leading providers.
Chart of the Day: Small Models are Closing the Gap to Frontier AI— Small AI models are closing the gap with large ones, achieving the same reasoning benchmarks with 142x fewer parameters than required two years ago. This makes on-device AI viable without data centers, compressing the economic case for cloud-based, per-query AI services.
AI Summary.The share of AI queries requiring top-tier proprietary models has fallen from 60% to 25%, as open-weight models handle a growing proportion of tasks at lower cost.
Toby NangleFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Data on OpenRouter, an AI query triage service, show that at the start of the year, the share of queries routed to a closed-weight proprietary model was 60%. That share has declined to 24% as open-weight performance has improved relative to frontier models.
Are open-source models eroding the competitive moat of proprietary AI?
Core argument: OpenRouter data show closed-weight proprietary models’ share of routed queries collapsed from 60% to 25% in 2025, indicating open models now handle three-quarters of real-world AI traffic.
One way to see which way the wind is blowing on open-model versus closed-model usage is by looking at data from router firms like OpenRouter, the New York start-up that Stripe agreed to buy last month. AI routers work a bit like an AI query triage service with a toll booth strapped on. Clients rock up, basically model-indifferent, and rather than tie themselves to any given model, they just send their queries to the router, which then flips them on to the lowest-cost model that will produce a good enough response for whatever the task at hand. Asking really tough closed-end frontier-model-worthy questions? To a frontier model they go. Increasingly, the share of queries that are truly closed-weight frontier-model-worthy is declining.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
OpenRouter data show closed-weight proprietary models’ share of routed queries collapsed from 60% to 25% in 2025, indicating open models now handle three-quarters of real-world AI traffic.
AI routers structurally disadvantage hyperscalers by directing queries to the cheapest adequate model, reserving closed-weight frontier offerings only for tasks that demonstrably require them.
Related Articles:
The AI Price Wars and Their Consequences— AI model pricing is converging toward commodity levels, where an 80% annual price decline requires 400% unit growth just to maintain flat revenue. Ceding lower-tier markets to defend premium pricing has historically failed against low-cost competitors, making trillion-dollar valuations difficult to sustain alongside heavy capital spending.
OpenAI and Anthropic In Price War as Chinese AI Rivals Gain Ground— AI model pricing is falling as competition intensifies, with leading models cutting token costs by up to 80%. Higher-priced models can deliver lower total costs by completing tasks in fewer tokens or attempts.
The AI Trade Is Losing One of Its Key Signals— AI token prices have fallen over 90% while total spending has roughly doubled, expanding the market overall. However, a 46% gap between AI investment and actual sales — wider than the 32% divergence seen during the 2001 telecom collapse — raises the risk that current infrastructure spending is outpacing real
AI Summary.Deep-tech investment outside AI has exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the $133bn invested across the entire prior decade. Falling valuations for traditional software companies and outsized returns from early bets on capital-intensive ventures are pushing investors toward riskier, science-driven deals.
Tim BradshawFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Since the start of 2024, more than $150B of venture capital has been invested into non-AI “deep tech” firms whose products are rooted in significant engineering advances, exceeding the $133B invested in such firms btw 2010 and 2019.
Are investors abandoning software for capital-intensive science bets?
Core argument: Deep-tech investment excluding AI exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the entire $133bn deployed across the prior decade (through end-2019), as falling valuations for traditional software push venture capital toward capital-intensive scientific bets.
The AI boom is fuelling a resurgence in ambitious “moonshot” bets, as early SpaceX backers’ huge returns and falling valuations for traditional software companies force tech investors to embrace riskier and more capital-intensive dealmaking. Excluding the giant sums ploughed into AI start-ups, global investment in “deep tech” — companies whose products are rooted in big scientific or engineering advances — has exceeded $150bn since the start of 2024, more than the $133bn in the entire decade to the end of 2019, according to Dealroom. This year’s deep-tech investments have not yet surpassed 2021’s peak, which was propelled by battery and electric vehicle deals for the likes of Rivian and Northvolt — many of which turned sour, highlighting the risks involved in moonshot dealmaking.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Deep-tech investment excluding AI exceeded $150bn since early 2024, surpassing the entire $133bn deployed across the prior decade (through end-2019), as falling valuations for traditional software push venture capital toward capital-intensive scientific bets.
The 2021 deep-tech peak — driven by battery and electric vehicle deals including Rivian and Northvolt — has not yet been surpassed, and the subsequent losses from those deals underscore the capital destruction risk inherent in moonshot dealmaking.
Related Articles:
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…
Public to Private Equity in the United States: A Long-Term Look— Global venture capital returns are highly skewed: 62% of deals lose money, more than half lose 50–100% of invested capital, but fat-tailed outliers drive overall returns. This pattern mirrors historical whaling voyages, where payoffs were similarly variable and driven by rare outsized outcomes.
Gross and Net US Investment— Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciating assets. The shift toward faster-depreciating information technology assets requires larger gross investment increases to achieve any given gain in productive capital per worker.
AI Summary.Long-term interest rates have risen 45–79 basis points across major economies, with the AI investment boom—not fiscal or monetary policy—driving the surge in demand for capital. A comparable IT spending wave in the late 1990s coincided with even higher long-term rates despite low inflation and a budget surplus.
Paul KrugmanKrugman Wonks Out
Date Posted:
Noting long-term yields have risen across advanced economies, Krugman argues increased yields over the last 6 months “may not have much to do with policy at all,” but are more likely due to “the surge in demand for funds as a result of the AI boom.”
Is artificial intelligence investment driving up global borrowing costs?
Core argument: Bruegel finds 30-year sovereign yields rose 45–79 bps across the U.S., Germany, France, Italy, the U.K., and Japan in the six months to Aug. 28, with the U.S. at 58 bps, suggesting a global demand-for-capital driver rather than U.S.-specific fiscal policy.
What [has been] driving interest rates higher [in the six months to August 28]? The European think tank Bruegel notes “US, German, French, Italian, UK, and Japanese 30-year yields [all] rose by 45-79 basis points in the six months to 28 August, with the US in the middle at 58bp.” It may not have much to do with policy at all, [but is instead due to] the surge in demand for funds as a result of the AI boom. We are in the midst of a surge in spending on IT that is on track to be even bigger than the boom of the late 1990s, [when] long-term rates were even higher then than they are now, even though inflation was low and we had a budget surplus.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Bruegel finds 30-year sovereign yields rose 45–79 bps across the U.S., Germany, France, Italy, the U.K., and Japan in the six months to Aug. 28, with the U.S. at 58 bps, suggesting a global demand-for-capital driver rather than U.S.-specific fiscal policy.
Rising Bond Yields Are Good, Actually— Higher interest rates remain low relative to nominal income and spending growth of ~7% annually, making current rate levels benign rather than restrictive. Elevated rates help reallocate spending away from consumption and housing toward productive investment, or attract foreign capital to fund that shift.
Don’t Draw The Wrong Conclusion From Treasury Yields— Rising long-term bond yields reflect higher expected short-term interest rates over the next decade, not concerns about government debt sustainability, as both inflation expectations and the risk premium for holding long-term bonds have remained stable.
AI Summary.S. facilities, targeting 10,000 units annually by 2028 at mid-six-figure euro prices — a fraction of the $4m–$6m cost of comparable Tomahawk missiles. Lower unit cost enables large-scale barrages to saturate hardened targets such as weapons factories and military bases.
Laura PitelFinancial Times
Date Posted:
Covenant, a defense start-up, is opening manufacturing facilities in the US, Germany, and Israel to manufacture its new deep-strike munition at scale, with a production target of 5,000 annually at its US and German sites in 2028.
Can cheaper missiles enable more effective saturation attacks on hardened targets?
Core argument: Covenant’s Anthem missile, priced in the mid-six-figure euro range, costs roughly 10–25x less than a Tomahawk ($4mn–$6mn), enabling saturation-barrage tactics that offset its smaller 250kg warhead through sheer volume.
Covenant aims to produce 1,000 Anthem missiles a year at each of its German and US plants in 2027, and 5,000 a year at each site from 2028. [Anthem] would cost in the “mid six-figure” euros — a fraction of the price of Tomahawks, which are sold to overseas governments for roughly $4mn-$6mn apiece. Covenant declined to state the range of the Anthem but [Covenant's CEO] said the concept was partly a response to a German-British plan to jointly develop “deep precision strike” weapons with a range of more than 2,000km. Anthem will carry a warhead weighing up to 250kg half the 450kg payload of a Tomahawk. But Covenant said the lower cost and ability to be produced at scale would allow militaries to fire large barrages of the missiles to “saturate” targets such as weapons factories or military bases.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Covenant’s Anthem missile, priced in the mid-six-figure euro range, costs roughly 10–25x less than a Tomahawk ($4mn–$6mn), enabling saturation-barrage tactics that offset its smaller 250kg warhead through sheer volume.
Covenant targets production of 1,000 Anthem missiles per year at each of its German and U.S. plants by 2027, scaling to 5,000 per site annually by 2028, with €130mn in orders already booked.
Is the Industrial Base on a Wartime Footing? A Progress Report— U.S. defense manufacturing has expanded significantly, with ~10,000 new firms entering the market, $120bn+ in contracts awarded to nontraditional companies, and munitions contract obligations up 330% since 2010. Spending priorities are shifting toward lower-cost weapons, with affordable munitions targeted to rise from 49% to 70% of total procurement by
AI Summary.AI-driven data-center expansion and related professional hiring have added roughly 1.05m jobs above trend since 2022–2023, spanning electrical contracting, equipment manufacturing, software development, and data science. The job gains exceed what broader construction, manufacturing, and professional employment trends would predict.
Economist StaffThe Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
The Economist estimates that so far the AI boom has created ~1mm new jobs in the US, exceeding their estimate of ~200,000 layoffs attributed to AI since mid-2023.
Is artificial intelligence creating a genuine employment boom or temporary hiring surge?
Core argument: AI-linked demand has generated roughly 730,000 above-trend jobs in engineering, software development, and data science since 2022, substantially outpacing near-term displacement effects.
[We] tracked five industries at the heart of the data-centre build-out, from electrical contracting to equipment manufacturing. Since 2023 employment in them has risen by roughly 320,000 more than broader construction and manufacturing trends would suggest. Not all of those jobs owe their existence to AI—grid upgrades and other factory building matters too. [We also] tracked employment in professional occupations closest to the AI boom—engineers, software developers, mathematicians and data scientists—and compared their growth since 2022 with professional employment overall. These roles have added roughly 730,000 jobs above trend in recent years. AI will not have created every single one of them. But it has almost certainly created quite a few.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
AI-linked demand has generated roughly 730,000 above-trend jobs in engineering, software development, and data science since 2022, substantially outpacing near-term displacement effects.
Data-centre construction has added approximately 320,000 above-trend jobs across electrical contracting and equipment manufacturing since 2023, with grid upgrades and broader factory-building contributing alongside AI demand.
Related Articles:
The College Wage Premium in the Generative AI Era— S. 575 between 2022 and 2026, the first sustained decline in relative demand for college-educated labor in four decades. AI exposure in white-collar occupations accounts for roughly 28% of that drop, as wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-AI-exposure jobs where college graduates are concentrated.
Looking for the Ladder— The downtick in hiring in AI-exposed occupations started 6 months prior to the release of ChatGPT, and is “perfectly” aligned with the start of Fed rate hikes…
AI Summary.Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment merely replaces depreciating assets. The shift toward faster-depreciating information technology assets requires larger gross investment increases to achieve any given gain in productive capital per worker.
Timothy TaylorConversable Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
U.S. real net private domestic investment—which adds to the American capital stock—is now only ~25% as large as gross investment, down from ~40% in the 1970s. Taylor suggests the widening gap between gross and net investment reflects the relatively rapid depreciation of IT-related capital.
Does faster asset depreciation explain slowing productivity growth?
Core argument: Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment now merely replaces depreciating capital rather than expanding the productive stock.
The figure divides net investment by gross investment. Back in the 1970s, net investment was often around 40% of gross investment, but the share has been slumping over time. For the last decade or so, net investment has been about 25% of the gross–that is, about three-quarters of gross investment is just making up for depreciation of the pre-existing capital stock. The likely reason for the growing gap between gross and net investment is that modern investment is more likely to be related to information technology [which] depreciates more rapidly and thus needs to be replaced and updated more often. If we want the average US worker to be using a greater amount of capital on the job–which was one of the key drivers of rising labor productivity in the past–it now takes a bigger rise in gross investment to lead to a given rise in net investment.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Net investment has fallen from ~40% of gross investment in the 1970s to ~25% today, meaning three-quarters of gross investment now merely replaces depreciating capital rather than expanding the productive stock.
The shift toward information technology — which depreciates faster than physical machinery — is the primary driver of the widening gap between gross and net investment.
Raising capital per worker, a historic engine of labor productivity growth, now requires a substantially larger increase in gross investment than it did several decades ago.
Related Articles:
US Stock Market To Stop Shrinking For First Time In 23 Years— US equity supply is turning positive for the first time in over two decades, as a surge in IPOs and large share sales by major technology companies outweighs the buybacks and privatizations that have shrunk the stock market since 2003.
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…
The Transition to a Higher Cost of Capital— Bridgewater Associates co-CIO Karen Karniol-Tambour expects 10-year Treasury yields to rise from the current ~4.5% to compensate for structurally higher fiscal…
AI Summary.S. 575 between 2022 and 2026, the first sustained decline in relative demand for college-educated labor in four decades. AI exposure in white-collar occupations accounts for roughly 28% of that drop, as wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-AI-exposure jobs where college graduates are concentrated.
José Azar, Mireia Gine and Javier Sanz-EspínSocial Science Research Network
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
The college wage premium flattened in the mid-2010s and has fallen ~8% since 2022. The authors argue that this compression reflects a broad decline in the returns to formal schooling, rather than a decline in the upper tail.
Is the college degree losing its economic value to artificial intelligence?
Core argument: The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 between 2022 and 2026—the first sustained decline in relative demand for college labor after four decades of uninterrupted expansion.
After expanding for four decades, the U.S. college wage premium [dropped] sharply from 0.626 in 2022 to 0.575 in 2026. Current Population Survey data through 2026 implies an unprecedented drop in relative demand for college labor—the first sustained negative relative demand growth. Post-2022 wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-exposure occupations, which employ a disproportionate share of college graduates. By 2026, going from zero occupational AI exposure to full exposure had a negative effect on wages of−0.086. Combined with the college–non-college exposure gap, this mechanism accounts for roughly 28% of the total drop in the college wage premium from 2022 to 2026. While non-causal, these patterns indicate that task displacement in AI-exposed white-collar occupations plays a quantitatively meaningful role in the recent compression of the aggregate skill premium.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 between 2022 and 2026—the first sustained decline in relative demand for college labor after four decades of uninterrupted expansion.
Moving from zero to full occupational AI exposure reduced wages by 0.086 log points by 2026.
the college–non-college AI-exposure gap accounts for roughly 28% of the total premium compression over that period.
Related Articles:
Looking for the Ladder— The downtick in hiring in AI-exposed occupations started 6 months prior to the release of ChatGPT, and is “perfectly” aligned with the start of Fed rate hikes…
AI and Young-adult Jobs: The Real Mystery— Since the summer of 2023, the employment rate for Americans 22–25 has declined for both college grads and non-college workers, a phenomenon beyond both…