“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
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“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 very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…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
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“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 full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
Evidence on how regulation shapes competition, investment, innovation, housing, labor markets, trade, and business formation. The archive considers both the public benefits of rules and the economic costs of complexity, delay, and barriers to entry.
AI Summary.Europe trains more engineering graduates per capita than China and more STEM PhDs than any region outside the United States, yet the only EU-born companies to reach $100bn market value in the past fifty years, Spotify and BioNTech, listed on US exchanges. Europe captures 6% of global AI startup funding versus 61% for the United States.
Mario KeputaSocial Science Research Network
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Despite top STEM talent and high savings, Europe captures just 6% of AI funding and lacks trillion-dollar firms. Between 2008 and 2021, ~30% of EU-founded unicorns relocated abroad, largely to the US, seeking deeper liquidity, higher valuations, and pro-growth regulation.
Why does Europe's world-class STEM talent fail to produce giant companies?
Core argument: Europe captures just 6% of global AI startup funding, versus 61% for the United States and 17% for China, despite training more engineering graduates per capita than China and more STEM PhDs than any region outside the U.S.
Europe produces more engineering graduates per capita than China. It trains more PhDs in STEM fields than any region outside the United States. Europe's universities rank among the world's best in dozens of disciplines. Europe's household savings rate exceeds that of America. Europe's research output, measured by publications and citations, is world-class. And yet the only EU-born companies to reach a market capitalisation of $100 billion in the past fifty years, Spotify and BioNTech, did so on the NYSE and Nasdaq respectively. Both chose American exchanges over European ones. None of the world's trillion-dollar companies is European. Europe captures just 6% of global AI startup funding, compared with 61% for the United States and 17% for China. Between 2008 and 2021, nearly 30% of European-founded unicorns relocated their headquarters abroad, overwhelmingly to the United States. They did not leave for the weather. They left because U.S. capital markets offered deeper liquidity, broader analyst coverage, higher valuations, and a regulatory environment designed for growth.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Europe captures just 6% of global AI startup funding, versus 61% for the United States and 17% for China, despite training more engineering graduates per capita than China and more STEM PhDs than any region outside the U.S.
The only EU-born companies to reach $100bn market capitalisation in the past fifty years, Spotify and BioNTech, listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq respectively, and none of the world's trillion-dollar companies is European.
Nearly 30% of European-founded unicorns relocated their headquarters abroad between 2008 and 2021, overwhelmingly to the United States, where capital markets offered deeper liquidity, broader analyst coverage, higher valuations, and a regulatory environment designed for growth.
Related Articles:
Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking”— A debate on U.S. fiscal policy argues that spending increases, rather than the tax increases needed to fund them, slow growth, and that higher taxes would reduce the expected value of America's innovative risk-taking. The argument holds that cutting debt below 100% of GDP is critical.
Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?— An international assessment of adult skills describes numeracy proficiency levels ranging from counting objects and adding small whole numbers at the lowest level, to extracting information from tables and graphs and performing basic arithmetic with money and percentages at Level 1, up to analysing complex mathematical information and critically evaluating whether data support a claim at Level 5.
The Future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe— A European Union competitiveness report attributes the EU's labour productivity growth gap with the US largely to weaker activity in information and communications technology and large-scale digital services; excluding main ICT sectors, EU productivity was broadly at par with the US from 2000-2019. It estimates Europe's investment share must rise about 5 percentage points of GDP.
AI Summary.The six largest US banks by assets — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — added $600bn in combined market value to reach $2.37tn, spurred by a deregulation push and a revival in investment banking. Europe's six most valuable banks are worth about $1tn combined.
Joshua FranklinFinancial Times
Date Posted:
The market cap of the six largest American banks rose $600B in 2025 to $2.37T – more than double that of their European peers – as investors bet on deregulation, such as allowing higher leverage and less onerous Basel III Endgame rules.
Has deregulation boosted the market value of large US banks?
Core argument: The six largest US banks by assets added $600bn in market value in 2025, with combined market capitalisation rising to $2.37tn from $1.77tn at the end of last year, according to S&P Global data.
America’s six largest banks added $600bn in market value in 2025, spurred on by the Trump administration’s push to deregulate the industry and a revival in investment banking. The collective market capitalisation of the six biggest US banks by assets — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — rose to $2.37tn at the close of business on Tuesday, up from $1.77tn at the end of last year, according to data from S&P Global. The six most valuable European banks have a market capitalisation of just $1tn combined, highlighting the gap that has opened since the financial crisis between US banks and their European rivals. The US banks are on track to outperform the broader S&P 500 for the second year in a row.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The six largest US banks by assets added $600bn in market value in 2025, with combined market capitalisation rising to $2.37tn from $1.77tn at the end of last year, according to S&P Global data.
Gains at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were spurred on by the Trump administration's push to deregulate the industry and a revival in investment banking.
The six most valuable European banks have a combined market capitalisation of $1tn, while the six biggest US banks are on track to outperform the broader S&P 500 for the second year in a row.
Related Articles:
Goosing Credit Supply— Faster loan growth at lightly regulated smaller banks, credit unions, and private credit compared with large banks suggests post-2008 rules that raised capital and liquid-asset requirements with bank size have constrained large-bank lending. With loan growth currently limited more by demand than supply, easing large-bank requirements may mainly shift existing loans toward large banks.
The Secular Decline of Bank Balance Sheet Lending— Traditional bank balance sheet lending has declined as a share of credit intermediation, with credit increasingly channeled through arms-length transactions such as securitization. A structural model attributes falling lending shares to lower securitization costs, savers' behavior driving bank balance sheet size, and implicit bank costs and subsidies shaping balance sheet composition.
Europe’s Financial Sector is a Drag— Europe's fragmented financial sector struggles to supply enough capital and liquidity to support European companies and economic growth, with the gap between US and European financial sectors widening since the 2008-2009 crisis. The total market value of European banks fell from $2.7tn to $1.4tn, while US bank market value rose from $1.6tn to $2.6tn.
AI Summary.Some rent-stabilized New York City apartments sit vacant and in disrepair because renovation costs far exceed what the regulated rents can recoup; a unit needing a $100,000 remodel may qualify for a maximum rent increase of only $347 a month.
Adam LehodeyCity Journal
Date Posted:
There are ~50,000 apartments in New York City that are not in the market either because “their operating costs exceed legal rents or because they require considerable renovations” that could not be recouped due to rent control.
Do rent caps leave apartments vacant when renovation costs exceed allowed rents?
Core argument: Two rent-stabilized one-bedrooms in an East 6th Street building rent below $900 per month while one-bedrooms in the same building average $3,500, and both stabilized units have fallen into disrepair because restoration costs exceed the rent they would generate.
Take a building on East 6th Street as an example. One-bedroom units in the building average $3,500— except two of them, subject to the city’s rent-stabilization laws, which hold rents below $900 per month. As a result, both units have been allowed to fall into disrepair, because the cost of restoring them to habitability is greater than what they’d generate in rent. “We’re talking a minimum of $100,000 for [the studio we first visited], which requires a complete remodeling,” Michael Johnson, a vice president at the New York Apartment Association, explained. In order to afford to renovate the two units at the building on East 6th Street, the owner could request a rent increase from New York’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal. But the maximum rent increase allowed would be $347, bringing rents to $955 and $1,211, respectively. Any bank could see that the $100,000 investment would never be paid back.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Two rent-stabilized one-bedrooms in an East 6th Street building rent below $900 per month while one-bedrooms in the same building average $3,500, and both stabilized units have fallen into disrepair because restoration costs exceed the rent they would generate.
Restoring the studio would cost a minimum of $100,000 for a complete remodeling, according to Michael Johnson, a vice president at the New York Apartment Association.
A rent increase requested from New York's Division of Housing and Community Renewal would be capped at $347, lifting the two East 6th Street units to $955 and $1,211, leaving a $100,000 investment unrecoverable.
Related Articles:
Why Do People Leave New York City?— Most people leaving New York City move to nearby suburbs such as Long Island and Westchester, citing housing—more space, ownership, or a better home than they can afford—as their main motivation. Those leaving for other states tend to be younger, more educated, and childless, and move primarily for jobs.
The Clock Now Ticks on Zohran Mamdani— New York City's share of the nation's millionaires has fallen 30% since 2010 and major banks have expanded in Dallas and Atlanta as finance's share of city employment shrank. The author argues a proposed city tax plan would leave remaining high earners paying 60% of taxes.
The Stationary Bandits of New York City— New York City's construction costs exceed international benchmarks: Paris installs metro platform edge doors for about €3.7m per station while the Metropolitan Transportation Authority says it needs $55m per station. The author argues stringent crane operator licensing and sidewalk shed regulations protect a small number of unionized contractors from competition.
AI Summary.Small, often invisible national and EU regulatory barriers persist within the European Union's single market for goods, such as overlapping labelling requirements that produce a 20cm label on a 12cm toy. The International Monetary Fund estimates these internal barriers act as a drag equivalent to a 44% tariff on Europe's economy.
Richard Milne and Sam JoinerFinancial Times
Date Posted:
French and EU regulations require a 20cm label on a 12cm €2 toy elephant. The IMF estimates that such “small, often invisible barriers to trade, taken together,” amount to “a drag on Europe’s economy equivalent to a tariff of 44%.”
How costly are hidden regulatory barriers within Europe's single market?
Core argument: The IMF estimates that remaining small, often invisible barriers to trade within the EU single market for goods amount to a drag on Europe's economy equivalent to a tariff of 44%.
If there is one product that symbolises the absurdities of the EU’s single market in goods, it might be a cuddly elephant. The Djungelskog toy from Ikea may only be 12cm tall and cost less than €2, but it has a 20cm-long label protruding from its behind. Environmental rules from France and EU textile legislation account for much of the length. But the elongated label reflects a strategic, even a philosophical, problem for Europe as its companies battle to compete globally. The single market in goods should be the EU’s crowning achievement. Compared with free movement of people, services or capital, it is the area that has come furthest in more than 30 years since the common market was established. Yet there remain small, often invisible barriers to trade that, taken together, amount to what the IMF estimates is a drag on Europe’s economy equivalent to a tariff of 44%.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The IMF estimates that remaining small, often invisible barriers to trade within the EU single market for goods amount to a drag on Europe's economy equivalent to a tariff of 44%.
Ikea's Djungelskog toy elephant, 12cm tall and costing less than €2, carries a 20cm label whose length is largely accounted for by French environmental rules and EU textile legislation.
The EU's single market in goods has advanced further than free movement of people, services or capital in the more than 30 years since the common market was established.
Related Articles:
The Future of European Competitiveness – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe— A European Union competitiveness report attributes the EU's labour productivity growth gap with the US largely to weaker activity in information and communications technology and large-scale digital services; excluding main ICT sectors, EU productivity was broadly at par with the US from 2000-2019. It estimates Europe's investment share must rise about 5 percentage points of GDP.
Forget the US — Europe has Successfully Put Tariffs on Itself— The International Monetary Fund estimates Europe's internal barriers are equivalent to tariffs of 45% on manufacturing and 110% on services, leaving trade across European Union countries at less than half the level of trade across US states. Regulation of digital services is estimated to have cut profits for small European tech firms by up to 12%.
Europe Regulates Its Way to Last Place— Europe's regulators tend to act on the mere possibility of harm rather than evidence of it, an approach that can throttle innovation early. The McKinsey Global Institute found that among companies with over $1bn in revenue, U.S. firms spent 80% more on research and development, had 30% higher return on capital, and grew revenue 1.3 percentage points faster.
AI Summary.New York state's share of US taxpayers reporting over $1m in income fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022, and the Citizens Budget Commission estimates state and city income tax receipts from that group would have been $13bn higher had the share held. Job growth has concentrated in lower-paid health care and social assistance.
The EconomistEconomist Staff
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Since January 2020, private sector real hourly earnings have fallen 9% in New York City, while increasing 3% nationally, as large firms based in NYC move jobs to lower-cost states. JP Morgan now has more workers in Texas than in New York.
Is a shrinking share of high earners weakening New York's tax base?
Core argument: New York state's share of U.S. taxpayers reporting more than $1m in income fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022, according to the Citizens Budget Commission.
According to the Citizens Budget Commission New York state’s share of American taxpayers reporting more than $1m in income declined from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022. Such people paid $34bn in income tax to the state and city in 2022, a figure that would have been $13bn higher if New York’s share of millionaires had held up. Estimates from Goldman Sachs suggest that fully 10% of households in New York City with incomes of more than $10m established residency elsewhere between 2018 and 2023. As the ultra-rich have headed for the exit, the city’s employment growth has become concentrated in much worse-paid industries than finance. Since the end of 2019, New York has added more than 268,000 jobs in health care and social assistance, particularly home health care. Employment as a whole rose by just 220,000 over the same period, meaning that, if it was not for that industry, overall employment would have shrunk.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
New York state's share of U.S. taxpayers reporting more than $1m in income fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022, according to the Citizens Budget Commission.
Taxpayers reporting more than $1m in income paid $34bn in New York state and city income tax in 2022, a figure that would have been $13bn higher had the state's share of millionaires held up.
New York added more than 268,000 health care and social assistance jobs since the end of 2019, against total employment growth of 220,000, meaning overall employment would have shrunk without that industry.
Related Articles:
The Stationary Bandits of New York City— New York City's construction costs exceed international benchmarks: Paris installs metro platform edge doors for about €3.7m per station while the Metropolitan Transportation Authority says it needs $55m per station. The author argues stringent crane operator licensing and sidewalk shed regulations protect a small number of unionized contractors from competition.
Behavioral Responses to State Income Taxation of High Earners: Evidence from California— A California ballot measure raising top marginal income tax rates by up to 3 percentage points prompted an additional 0.8% of the affected tax base to leave the state, with an estimated income elasticity of 2.5–3.2 for high earners who stayed. The authors estimate these responses eroded 45.2% of windfall revenues within one year and 60.9% within two.
Taxing Billionaires: Estate Taxes and the Geographical Location of the Ultra-Wealthy— The authors estimate that US billionaires move to states without estate taxes as they age, with $80.7bn of Forbes 400 wealth escaping estate taxation as a result. They find that for the average state the added estate tax revenue exceeds forgone income tax revenue by 31%, with California a notable exception.
AI Summary.New York City's top 1%, those earning at least $900,000, receive roughly 40% of city income — about twice the inequality of the US overall — and contribute about two-fifths of the city's $18bn in annual income tax revenue. Their homes and offices also cover a large share of roughly $34bn in yearly property levies.
Ben Steverman and Emily FlitterBloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
“Even a few billionaires or marquee employers packing up their bags” could put a significant hole in NYC’s budget, given that the city’s top 1% earners pay 40% of the city’s income tax and a significant portion of property taxes.
How dependent is New York City's budget on its wealthiest residents?
Core argument: New York City's wealthiest 1% earn roughly 40% of the city's income, about twice the income inequality of the US as a whole and higher than any other country, according to the World Inequality Database.
The city’s wealthiest 1% earn roughly 40% of its dollars, a share that fluctuates based on financial and market conditions. That’s about twice the income inequality in the US as a whole and also higher than any other country in the world, according to the World Inequality Database. Almost 35,000 year-round city residents earned at least $1 million in 2023, the latest tax data show. Of the world’s 500 wealthiest people, 23 call New York City home, with a combined net worth of nearly $450 billion, and many more come through town as often as time and their tax situations allow. Depleting this resource could devastate the city. Each year, NYC’s top 1%—those with incomes of at least $900,000—contribute about two-fifths of the city’s $18 billion in annual income tax revenue. Their lavish homes and sleek offices cover a large share of the city’s roughly $34 billion in annual property levies as well. Even a few billionaires or marquee employers packing up their bags could put a noticeable dent in the municipal budget.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
New York City's wealthiest 1% earn roughly 40% of the city's income, about twice the income inequality of the US as a whole and higher than any other country, according to the World Inequality Database.
New York City's top 1%, those with incomes of at least $900,000, contribute about two-fifths of the city's $18 billion in annual income tax revenue, and their homes and offices cover a large share of roughly $34 billion in annual property levies.
Almost 35,000 year-round New York City residents earned at least $1 million in 2023, and 23 of the world's 500 wealthiest people call the city home, with a combined net worth of nearly $450 billion.
Related Articles:
Behavioral Responses to State Income Taxation of High Earners: Evidence from California— A California ballot measure raising top marginal income tax rates by up to 3 percentage points prompted an additional 0.8% of the affected tax base to leave the state, with an estimated income elasticity of 2.5–3.2 for high earners who stayed. The authors estimate these responses eroded 45.2% of windfall revenues within one year and 60.9% within two.
Taxing Billionaires: Estate Taxes and the Geographical Location of the Ultra-Wealthy— The authors estimate that US billionaires move to states without estate taxes as they age, with $80.7bn of Forbes 400 wealth escaping estate taxation as a result. They find that for the average state the added estate tax revenue exceeds forgone income tax revenue by 31%, with California a notable exception.
Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking”— A debate on U.S. fiscal policy argues that spending increases, rather than the tax increases needed to fund them, slow growth, and that higher taxes would reduce the expected value of America's innovative risk-taking. The argument holds that cutting debt below 100% of GDP is critical.
AI Summary.An economist projects that within 50 years technological advances will roughly double the average American's inflation-adjusted income, while substantial inequality persists. The forecast also anticipates a more robust safety net including a modest universal basic income, higher taxes and a value-added tax, shorter work weeks, and fewer heavy-handed market interventions.
Greg MankiwWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Looking fwd 50 years, Mankiw forecasts “heavy handed” state intervention in competitive US markets (such as industrial policy, tariffs and minimum wages) will decline, arguing “The arc of the economic universe is long, but it bends toward efficiency.”
How will technology, taxes, and the safety net reshape American capitalism?
Core argument: One contributor projects that technological advances will roughly double the average American's inflation-adjusted income within 50 years, while substantial inequality persists and populist agitators continue to argue that elites have rigged the economy.
If I squint, some patterns for the U.S. economy 50 years from now take shape. Thanks to advances in technology, the income of the average American, adjusted for inflation, will be about twice what it is today. Substantial inequality will persist, and populist agitators will continue to argue that the elites have rigged the economy. Partly as a response, the social safety net will become more robust, including a modest universal basic income. Taxes will be higher to fund the expanded safety net, and because people will have learned that government debt relative to GDP cannot rise forever. Like most of the world today, the U.S. will have a value-added tax. Work weeks will be shorter due to both the disincentive effect of higher taxes and the desire of most people to use their greater prosperity to enjoy more leisure. Acknowledging past mistakes, the government will eschew most heavy-handed interventions in competitive markets, such as industrial policy, tariffs, minimum wages, rent control and Nimby zoning. These developments will be deemed desirable by most of the public and economists at the time. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., if he were an economist: The arc of the economic universe is long, but it bends toward efficiency.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
One contributor projects that technological advances will roughly double the average American's inflation-adjusted income within 50 years, while substantial inequality persists and populist agitators continue to argue that elites have rigged the economy.
The projection includes a more robust social safety net with a modest universal basic income, funded by higher taxes and a value-added tax, partly because people will have learned that government debt relative to GDP cannot rise forever.
Work weeks are forecast to shorten, reflecting both the disincentive effect of higher taxes and a desire to spend greater prosperity on leisure, with government eschewing industrial policy, tariffs, minimum wages, rent control and Nimby zoning.
Related Articles:
The Fiscal Future— US debt is on an upward trajectory, and the author argues that extraordinary growth, default, money creation, and spending cuts are each implausible or unacceptable, leaving large tax increases. US governments collect about 28% of GDP in taxes versus 35% in the UK and 46% in France, and a value-added tax could close the roughly 4%-of-GDP fiscal gap.
Living with High Public Debt— High public debt ratios are likely to persist because large sustained primary budget surpluses are politically unrealistic, real interest rates are already very low, faster global growth is hard to engineer, inflation is not a sustainable route to reducing debt, and financial repression is less feasible amid liberalized markets.
Life Under Two: Debt, Deficits, and the AI Discontinuity— The United States averaged annual GDP growth above 3% for decades, but 2% or less is now more likely. Over ten years, the author estimates that gap amounts to a $3.36tn larger economy, $3.7tn more tax revenue, and 6m more jobs, shifting public psychology from abundance toward scarcity.
AI Summary.Executive orders can streamline permitting for pipeline and transmission projects, but without explicit federal eminent domain legislation such projects remain open to legal challenge, and US oil pipeline, gas pipeline and transmission line construction has nearly halted. Ending leasing to wind farms would be marginal since only 2% of US wind power is on public lands.
Michael CembalestJ. P. Morgan
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Michael Cembalest notes streamlining permits for energy infrastructure will likely have only a limited impact on speeding construction without Federal eminent domain powers. Still a 7% increase in oil and gas output by 2029 is “a very achievable goal.”
Can executive orders restart stalled pipeline and transmission construction?
Core argument: Bessent's 3-3-3 target amounts to a 7% increase in US oil, gas and NGL production, most of which will continue to rely on hydraulic fracturing, a goal the authors call very achievable, though its effect on US energy prices is less clear.
You can try to streamline permits for pipelines and transmission projects with executive orders, but without explicit Federal eminent domain legislation, projects can still be challenged for a number of reasons. Oil pipeline, gas pipeline and transmission line projects in the US have practically ground to a halt. It would be quite a feat from a political perspective to jumpstart the pace. The Trump agenda also calls for an “end to leasing to wind farms”, but only 2% of US wind power takes place on public lands as opposed to private lands, so that’s a marginal issue at best. Trump might have more luck achieving Bessent’s target for higher domestic energy production. Based on our energy math, Bessent’s 3-3-3 target amounts to a 7% increase in oil, gas and NGL production (most of which will continue to rely on hydraulic fracturing) and is a very achievable goal. Whether this brings down US energy prices is less clear.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Bessent's 3-3-3 target amounts to a 7% increase in US oil, gas and NGL production, most of which will continue to rely on hydraulic fracturing, a goal the authors call very achievable, though its effect on US energy prices is less clear.
Without explicit federal eminent domain legislation, executive orders streamlining permits still leave oil pipeline, gas pipeline and transmission line projects, which have practically ground to a halt in the US, open to challenge on a number of grounds.
Trump's call for an end to leasing to wind farms is a marginal issue at best, since only 2% of US wind power takes place on public lands rather than private lands.
Related Articles:
Oil Was Written Off. Now It’s the Most Productive US Industry— US oil and gas extraction productivity nearly tripled in a decade, and crude output reached a record 13.3m barrels a day — 48% above Saudi Arabia — with under a third of the rigs. BloombergNEF projects production growth of 600,000 barrels a day on higher well productivity.
U.S. Crude Oil Production Established A New Record In August 2024— U.S. crude oil production averaged a record 13.4m barrels per day in August, topping the prior monthly record of 13.3m barrels per day. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts annual production averaging 13.2m barrels per day, above the 12.9m annual record, and 13.5m barrels per day the following year.
AI is Changing Oil Country—and Pumping Up Profits— The U.S. produces 60% more oil per day with 40% fewer workers than a decade ago, with annual productivity gains roughly 7x those of the average U.S. business. In the Permian, the break-even oil price has fallen to $40 a barrel from over $90, and AI tools that predict the most productive drilling locations should push it lower.
