Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “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
  • “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
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “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
  • “…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
  • “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
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
  • Mentions 442
  • Primary focus 219
Showing 219 database articles primarily about Business Cycle
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Business Cycle
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,192 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Business Cycle):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

Unpacking Joe Biden’s lies about the Trump job-creation miracle

Andy Puzder New York Post
Date Posted:
October 2, 2020
Is Database:
Database

Under Obama-Biden, labor force participation fell from 65.7% to 62.8% & job openings never exceeded unemployed numbers. Under Trump, job openings surpassed unemployed numbers for 24 months, LFP rose to 63.4% & wage growth exceeded 3% for 20 months.

Under Obama-Biden, labor force participation fell from 65.7% to 62.8% & job openings never exceeded unemployed numbers....
During the Obama-Biden administration, the labor force participation rate [LFP] fell from 65.7% to 62.8%, with job openings never exceeding the number of unemployed individuals. By January 2017, there were 1.9m more unemployed people than job openings. In contrast, under Trump, regulatory changes and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led to a reversal by March 2018, with job openings surpassing unemployed numbers for the first time since 2000, maintaining this trend for 24 months pre-pandemic. The LFP rose to 63.4%, and wage growth exceeded 3% year-over-year for 20 consecutive months, a feat not achieved during the Obama years. This environment encouraged individuals outside the labor force to re-enter, with 74.2% of new hires in Q4 2019 coming from outside the labor force, the highest since 1990. These shifts highlight significant differences in economic trends and labor market dynamics between the two administrations.

Andy Puzder on the impact of the high pressure economy, attached is an excel sheet (of our own calculations) of the following series showing the last three years of Obama’s second term (December 2013-December 2016), versus Trump’s prior to pandemic (January 2017-January 2020)

Job Openings Total Nonfarm (Seasonally Adjusted)

Unemployment Level (Seasonally Adjusted)

Ratio Of Job Openings To Unemployment

Working Age Population 25-54

Working Age Population 55-64

Working Age Population 25-64

All Employees Total (Nonfarm, Seasonally Adjusted)

Ratio Employment Growth To Population Growth

Average Hourly Earnings (All Employees, Total Private)

Labor Force Participation (Seasonally Adjusted)

Real Private Fixed Investment (Billions 2012$ Seasonally Adjusted)

Real GDP (Billions 2012$, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate)

Ratio Private Fixed Investment To Real GDP

Real Private Fixed Investment As a Percentage Of Real GDP

Total Construction Spending Residential (Millions, Seasonally Adjusted)

Total Construction Spending Commercial (Millions, Seasonally Adjusted)

University Of Michigan Consumer Sentiment (December 2013 =100)

Real Net Fixed Investment: Non Residential Consumption Of Fixed Capital (Billions 2009$)

Puzder job openings never exceeded number of people employed for 8 years of Obama

“…For the eight years of the Obama-Biden administration,there wasn’t a single month when job openings exceeded the number of people unemployed. Zero.In fact, when Obama and Biden left office in January 2017, there were 1.9 million more people unemployed than there were job openings. So there was an abundance of people looking for work, but too few jobs opportunities open to them….”

Trump’s term (pre pandemic)“…A little more than a year later, in March 2018, that situation had reversed. Following Trump’s regulatory overhaul and passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,employment openings exceeded the number of people unemployed for the first time on records going back to 2000.Astoundingly, that remained the case for 24 consecutive months — until the pandemic — with over 1 million more job openings than people unemployed for 17 of those months….”

Andy Puzder, "Unpacking Joe Biden’s lies about the Trump job-creation miracle,"New York Post, October 1, 2020, https://nypost.com/2020/10/01/unpacking-joe-bidens-lies-about-the-trump-job-creation-miracle/

2009-2017 comp, “…By contrast, under the Obama-Biden administration, people fled the labor force, discouraged by limited opportunities and stagnant wages. During Biden’s eight years in office, the labor force participation rate — the share of people working or actively looking for work — dropped from 65.7 to 62.8 percent. During Trump’s first three pre-pandemic years, it rose back up to 63.4 percent, as people rejoined the labor force….”

Impact on LFP and wage growth, “….This unprecedented competition for workers had extremely positive consequences. It lowered the unemployment rate, which consistently hit 50-year lows, and as a result, employers began competing for workers and raising wages. In August 2018, year-over-year wage growth exceeded 3 percent for the first time in nearly a decade and stayed at or above 3 percent for 20 consecutive months until the pandemic. By comparison, under Team Obama-Biden there wasn’t a single post-recession month when wage growth exceeded 3 percent. Again, zero. With wages rising, people started coming out of the woodwork to fill those abundant good-paying job openings. In the fourth quarter of 2019, 74.2 percent of workers who took jobs came from outside the labor force rather than the ranks of the unemployed. That was the highest percentage since 1990, when the government began reporting such data…”

  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Growth
  • Productivity
    • Investment
  • Workforce
    • Unemployment/Participation
    • Wages/Income
Previous articleOctober 1, 2020Calculation of the Social Returns To InnovationStandard Discount Rates Imply $1 Of R&D Today On Average Creates At Least $10 Of Economy Wide Benefits.Next articleOctober 2, 2020How Has Educational Funding Changed Over Time?In 2015, federal and state educational spending revealed a $1,013 per-student disparity favoring poor students, totaling $10.4bn. Despite targeted funding of $67.8bn for poor students, the larger non-poor demographic led to $219.9bn more spending on them.
Showing 218 database articles primarily about Business Cycle

3% vs. 60%

AI Summary. Direct lending represents roughly 3% of total U.S. household and business debt, a fraction of the 60% share mortgages held at the peak of the housing bubble.

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
April 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Torsten Sløk notes the direct lending market is ~$2T or 3% of household and non-financial debt outstanding. To provide context, he shows that in 2006, on the eve of the crisis, mortgages accounted for ~60% of such debt.

Core argument: Direct lending represents a small but growing alternative to traditional bank financing for businesses and households.

The direct lending market is roughly $2 trillion, or about 3% of total debt outstanding for US households and businesses. By comparison, mortgages accounted for about 60% of total household and corporate debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Direct lending represents a small but growing alternative to traditional bank financing for businesses and households.
  2. The mortgage market’s dominance has shifted dramatically since the 2006 housing peak, reducing systemic risk concentration.
  3. Non-bank lenders now capture meaningful market share in credit provision across the economy.

Related Articles:

  • JPMorgan Marking Down Loan Portfolios Of Private Credit Groups — JPMorgan has marked down the value of loans made to software companies by private credit groups. These loans are collateral for JPM’s lending to private…
  • Data Update 7 for 2026: Debt and Taxes — Damodaran argues that the private credit industry’s increasing financing of the AI buildout is another sign that “a shakeout is overdue, which will…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets

Top 10% of Earners Drive a Growing Share of US Consumer Spending

Jonnelle Marte Bloomberg
Date Posted:
September 17, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Mark Zandi finds Americans in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of consumer spending in Q2, the highest level since 1989.

Consumers in the top 10% of the income distribution accounted for 49.2% of total spending in the second quarter, up from 48.5% in the first quarter, reaching the highest level in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. In contrast, the bottom 80% of the income distribution, or consumers making less than roughly $175,000 a year, have seen their spending merely keep pace with inflation since the pandemic.

Related Articles:

  • The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People — The top 10% of US earners now account for nearly half of all personal spending, according to Moody’s @Markzandi, up from 36% three decades ago. “The finances…
  • To Understand America Today, Study the Zero-Sum Mindset — Zero-sum thinking, in terms of political and policy views is strongly associated with lower levels of intergenerational upward mobility. @S_Stantcheva notes…
  • Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides — Zero-sum thinking in terms of political and policy views is strongly associated with lower levels of intergenerational upward mobility. @S_Stantcheva…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

Litigation Nation, Engineering Empire

Jonathon Sine Cogitations
Date Posted:
September 2, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Jonathon Sine argues China “is moving beyond its breakneck industrial prime, facing similar dilemmas to those America confronted in the 1960s and 70s.” The ratio of science/engineering to humanities undergraduate majors is 2:1 in both the PRC and US.

Dan Wang’s “big idea” [is] “China is an engineering state, building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States’ lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad.” I re-group US college majors according to Chinese disciplines to allow for rough comparison. Surprisingly, the ratio of science/engineering to humanities/social sciences is 2:1, the same as in China (if one groups management with science/engineering, as I also do for China). As with China today, America’s breakneck building phase was decidedly winding down by the 1960s. Urbanization went from 40% in 1900 to 70% by 1960, and grew much more incrementally over the next 60 years to 85% by 2020. The country simply did not need to continue building dams, expressways, and energy production facilities at breakneck pace. It became much more a matter of maintaining and upgrading (which has not gone well, at least according to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ report card). The American [building/investment slowdown that started after the 1970s] may be more about structural economic shifts than lawyers.

Related Articles:

  • Industrial Colossus: China vs 1950s America — Jonathan Sine argues China’s global manufacturing share is likely near its peak as growth has slowed from 1.5% to 0.5% btw 2010 and today due to…
  • The Real China Model — Electricity supplies nearly 30% of China’s energy use today and is growing at an annual rate of 6%. In the US, electricity accounts for 22% of energy use and…
  • America’s Housing Affordability Crisis and the Decline of Housing Supply — Why are constant-quality house prices 15% above their pre-2007 peak? Ed Glaeser notes that US housing grew just 0.6% annually in the 2010s, down from 4% in the…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Growth

How America’s AI Boom Is Squeezing The Rest Of The Economy

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
August 19, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

As AI-related investment has risen since 2023, residential and nonresidential investment have declined or flatlined. This may suggest that a relatively rate-insensitive AI buildout is crowding out more interest-sensitive forms of investment.

Something like a sixth of the 2% rise in American real GDP over the past year has come from investments in computer and communications equipment, including chips, and data centres. Add in the grid upgrades to power AI models, plus the intellectual-property value of the software itself, and one estimate puts the boom’s contribution to real GDP growth at 40%. The trouble is that the very sector powering so much of America’s economic growth is squeezing the rest of its output. Housebuilders, for instance, cannot afford to be blithe about higher borrowing costs. Data centres have also constrained the rest of the economy by keeping energy prices high. Average American electricity bills have risen by 7% so far in 2025, at least in part due to the extra strain data centres have put on the grid. Real consumption has flatlined since December. Housebuilding has slumped, as has non-AI business investment.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Kedrosky estimates capex related to the datacenter buildout is ~20% of the railroad buildout in the 1880s and rising, though he cautions AI datacenter…
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four major “hyperscalers” continue to have a large gap btw AI spending ($440B in 2024 and $596B in 2025) and AI revenues. The four firms now account for…
  • The AI Boom’s Hidden Risk to the Economy — Btw 2016 and 2023, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft’s free cash flow and net earnings ~ tracked each other; since 2023, net earnings have risen 73%…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Is it Over?

Joseph Wang Fed Guy Blog
Date Posted:
August 18, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Following tepid reactions to the release of GTP-5, Joe Wang observes, “It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from.”

GPT-5 users widely expressed disappointment in the capabilities of the new release, which seemed in some ways a step back. This sentiment is reflected in benchmarks that show a modest improvement in capabilities since the significant improvement in version 4 released two years ago. In addition, the benchmarks suggest a broader convergence in the capabilities of AI models. Commentary suggests this could be due to inherent limitations in the LLM technology and exhaustion of new training data. AI is fascinating technology, but it may not justify the enormous sums spent in its pursuit. It is looking more like companies are spending hundreds of billions on rapidly depreciating GPUs that produce a commoditized product that most clients only modestly benefit from. The entire macro landscape would look very different without the support of the AI boom.

Related Articles:

  • Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy — Kedrosky estimates capex related to the datacenter buildout is ~20% of the railroad buildout in the 1880s and rising, though he cautions AI datacenter…
  • Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming — The four major “hyperscalers” continue to have a large gap btw AI spending ($440B in 2024 and $596B in 2025) and AI revenues. The four firms now account for…
  • AI’s $600B Question — .@DavidCahn6 at @sequoia argues that because of lack of pricing power and rapidly improving chip technologies, multi-$B investments in current-generation GPUs…
  • Business Cycle
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

US Households and Firms Are in Great Shape

Torsten Sløk Apollo
Date Posted:
March 31, 2025
Is Database:
Database

​​Torsten Sløk notes that US household and banking sector debt has fallen to its lowest level in decades as a % of GDP, while corporate leverage has moved sideways. “The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.”

Household sector leverage and banking sector leverage have declined significantly since 2008. Over the same period, federal government leverage has increased significantly, and corporate leverage has moved sideways. The bottom line is that the private sector in the US is in incredibly good shape.

Related Articles:

  • Global Debt Report 2025 — Over the next two years, the US must refinance debt exceeding 25% of GDP at sharply higher rates. Treasuries issued in 2024 carried an average yield…
  • The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055 — Debt as a % of GDP will hit an all-time high of 107% in 2029 up from 98% of GDP in 2024, @USCBO forecasts. The forecast assumes 10-year Treasuries will yield…
  • Our Thoughts on Large US Deficits and Their Impact on Bond Yields — Bridgewater believes an increase in the deficit to 7-8% of GDP will not put undue pressure on bond yields. They argue rates reflect total credit creation…
  • Business Cycle
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Government Spending
  • GDP
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms