Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “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 fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…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 must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
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 199
  • Primary focus 112
Showing 112 database articles primarily about Inflation
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Inflation
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,192 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Inflation):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

How Much Did Supply Constraints Boost U.S. Inflation? - Liberty Street Economics

AI Summary. Supply chain bottlenecks account for 40% of the 9% US inflation surge, with the remaining 60% driven by demand shocks from fiscal stimulus and shifting consumption patterns; without supply constraints, inflation would have peaked at 6% instead of 9%.

Julian di Giovanni Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
September 9, 2022
Is Database:
Database

US inflation at end 2021 would have been 6% instead of 9% without supply chain bottlenecks.

How much inflation reflects demand versus supply-side constraints?

Core argument: Supply chain bottlenecks accounted for 300 bps of the 918 bps inflation surge through 2021, reducing what would have been 6% inflation to 9%, demonstrating that pandemic-related constraints across 58 of 66 sectors amplified demand-driven price pressures.

The U.S. experienced significant inflation from 2019 to 2021, with the CPI inflation rate reaching 9.18% by the end of 2021. Analysis reveals that 60% of this inflation was driven by aggregate demand shocks, largely due to fiscal stimulus and changes in consumption patterns, while 40% was attributed to supply-side constraints. These constraints, exacerbated by pandemic-related disruptions, affected fifty-eight out of sixty-six sectors, magnifying the impact of increased demand. Without these supply bottlenecks, inflation would have been 6% instead of 9%. As supply chain issues ease, a notable reduction in inflation is anticipated, highlighting the critical role of supply constraints in the recent inflation surge.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Supply chain bottlenecks accounted for 300 bps of the 918 bps inflation surge through 2021, reducing what would have been 6% inflation to 9%, demonstrating that pandemic-related constraints across 58 of 66 sectors amplified demand-driven price pressures.
  2. Aggregate demand shocks from fiscal stimulus and consumption shifts drove 60% of 2021 inflation versus 40% from supply constraints, establishing that monetary and fiscal policy responses magnified the inflationary impact of supply-side disruptions.

“…The "Model-based Inflation" bar in the chart above presents an estimation of the U.S. CPI inflation rate over the 2019-21 period, which was calculated to be 9.18% from Dec. '19 to Dec. '21, annualized. The actual observed inflation during this period is 8.47%, so the model-calibrated rate is very close. “Backed-out AD shock” explains roughly 60% of model-based inflation, driven by fiscal stimulus and other aggregate demand factors. “Sectoral demand shock” driven by change in households’ consumption patterns across sectors accounts for very little, so the remaining 40% is primarily explained by “Sectoral supply shock,” with fifty-eight out of sixty-six sectors supply-constrained. In the absence of any new energy or other shock, it is therefore possible that the ongoing easing of supply bottlenecks will cause a substantial drop in inflation in the near term…”

Julian di Giovanni, 'How Much Did Supply Constraints Boost U.S. Inflation?,"Federal Reserve Bank Of New York, August 24, 2022, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2022/08/how-much-did-supply-constraints-boost-u-s-inflation/

How Much Did Supply Constraints Boost U.S. Inflation?

What factors are behind the recent inflation surge has been a huge topic of debate amongst academics and policymakers. We know that pandemic-related supply constraints such as labor shortages and supply chain bottlenecks have been key factors pushing inflation higher. These bottlenecks started with the pandemic (lockdowns, sick workers) and were made worse by the push arising from increased demand caused by very expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. Our analysis of the relative importance of supply-side versus demand-side factors finds 60 percent of U.S. inflation over the 2019-21 period was due to the jump in demand for goods while 40 percent owed to supply-side issues that magnified the impact of this higher demand.

The Debate

The U.S. has witnessed near historic inflation since the economy began to re-open in 2021 following the COVID-19 lockdowns, as seen in the chart below. There have been several factors put forth to explain this inflation outburst and its persistence, which have been difficult for policymakers to disentangle and have led to an active debate by leading economists. Some analysts have focused on the importance of supply chain constraints, while others point to demand as driving the jump in inflation. Meanwhile, some economists argue that a combination of supply and demand factors are necessary to generate the inflation we are currently witnessing. Our work belongs to the last camp.

How Much Did Supply Constraints Boost U.S. Inflation? - Liberty Street Economics: Extended Excerpt Image 1


A Model-Based Approach

Arriving at a definitive understanding of the relative importance of demand and supply drivers of inflation is difficult without providing some formal structure that can be taken to the data. In the recent work referenced above, we take a step in this direction by building on the work of others to quantify the effects of the pandemic on inflation over the period spanning both the collapse and recovery phases of the economy. This framework not only allows us to examine the cumulative impact of the pandemic from 2019:Q4 to 2021:Q4, before the Russia-Ukraine war’s “energy/food shock” on inflation, but also to decompose the contribution of demand- and supply-side factors underlying the observed inflation.

The model allows for the observed limited factor mobility. That is, since everyone was exposed to the same health-related shock at a global level, it was difficult for firms to reallocate labor between sectors and/or switch and substitute suppliers in the short run, leading to shortages in labor and in other inputs. Furthermore, besides demand effects being present at the aggregate level—due to accommodative fiscal and monetary policy—the composition of demand also changed as consumers substituted from services to goods. The model incorporates these aggregate and sectoral demand effects, which can further amplify the impact of supply-side constraints on inflation due to the resulting supply-demand imbalances.

Taking the Model to the Data

We calibrate a closed-economy version of the model to match the observed U.S. inflation over the 2019-21 period, along with doing a similar exercise for the euro area. The model implies that inflation is a function of aggregate demand shocks, changes in hours worked, and productivity by sector. The changes in hours worked capture both demand and supply shocks, while changes in productivity/technology are sectoral supply shocks.

We assume that sector-level technological changes were zero over the 2019-21 period and use the observed inflation rate along with sectoral hours worked to back out the implied aggregate demand shock. The computed aggregate demand shock captures several possible demand drivers, such as changes in households’ preferences for consumption in the present vs. future as well as expansionary effects of fiscal and/or monetary policy.

Armed with the implied aggregate demand shock, the growth rates of sectoral hours worked, and the observed change in the composition of sectoral consumption (that is, an increase in consumption in the goods sector and a fall in consumption in the service sector), we then use the model structure to decompose the relative importance of supply and demand shocks in driving inflation. Crucially, the model structure allows us to explain why observed employment may have been below its “normal” level, and what sectoral dimensions of the data are crucial explaining this outcome—for example, a shortage of workers or a lack of demand given changes in preferences and/or the aggregate demand shift

U.S. Results

The first bar in the chart below presents our estimation of the U.S. CPI inflation rate over the 2019-21 period, which was calculated to be 9.18 percent from December 2019 to December 2021, annualized. The actual observed inflation during this period is 8.47 percent, so the model-calibrated rate is very close. The next three bars decompose the drivers of inflation. Notice that the sum of these bars is 10.5 percent, which is slightly higher given the nonlinear interactions between sixty-six sectors. The aggregate demand shock (“backed-out AD shock”) explains roughly 60 percent of model-based inflation. The remaining 40 percent of the model-based inflation is primarily explained by sectoral supply shocks (“sectoral supply shock”), while the change in households’ consumption patterns across sectors (“sectoral demand shock”) accounts for very little. The bottom line of this decomposition is that supply constraints magnified the impact of higher demand in inflation. Consequently, most sectors in the U.S.—fifty-eight out of sixty-six—were supply-constrained. This result is consistent with other research that shows that expansionary fiscal policy has increased the share of sectors classified as supply-constrained.

How Much Did Supply Constraints Boost U.S. Inflation? - Liberty Street Economics: Extended Excerpt Image 2


Conclusions

The current debate on whether the Federal Reserve can engineer a soft landing needs to disentangle the drivers of U.S. inflation. Our work shows that inflation in the U.S. would have been 6 percent instead of 9 percent at the end of 2021 without supply bottlenecks. Our quantitative results clarify why some pundits were wrong to predict a transitory surge in inflation, while others were right in predicting high inflation, but for the wrong reasons. Put differently, fiscal stimulus and other aggregate demand factors would not have driven inflation this high without the pandemic-related supply constraints. In the absence of any new energy or other shock, it is therefore possible that the ongoing easing of supply bottlenecks will cause a substantial drop in inflation in the near term.

  • Inflation
  • GDP
    • Business Cycle
    • Growth
Previous articleSeptember 9, 2022Do corporate tax cuts boost economic growth?New studies increasingly report less growth-enhancing effects of corporate tax cuts, with recent findings suggesting a negligible impact when controlling for other tax types & budgetary components.Next articleSeptember 9, 2022The Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Budgetary Costs And Distributional ImpactBiden’s student loan forgiveness plan could cost >$1T.
Showing 111 database articles primarily about Inflation

Choking Iran's Economy Is the Least Bad Way to End the War

AI Summary. Iran's economy is contracting at its fastest rate in roughly 40 years, with inflation above 50%, food costs doubling year-over-year, and the national currency near worthless.

Javier Blas Bloomberg
Date Posted:
August 20, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Inflation in Iran is running at at least ~69%, its highest annual rate in 70 years. The black market exchange value of a rial hit a record low of ~1.85mm rials to the dollar, relative to 50,000 per dollar five years ago.

Is economic collapse the only path to ending the conflict?

Core argument: Iran’s inflation rate exceeds 50% annually — the highest in nearly 70 years of records — while food and essential goods costs have doubled year over year, severely compressing household purchasing power across the economy.

[Iran's] economy is on track to suffer the biggest annual contraction since the nadir of the Iran-Iraq War in the mid-1980s. Inflation is running well above 50%, the highest annual rate since records start nearly 70 years ago. Worse, the cost of food and other necessities has already doubled from a year ago. Its currency, the rial, is worthless. In the black market, the exchange rate has collapsed to a record low of about 1.85 million rials to the dollar; five years ago, roughly 50,000 rials were enough to buy a greenback.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Iran’s inflation rate exceeds 50% annually — the highest in nearly 70 years of records — while food and essential goods costs have doubled year over year, severely compressing household purchasing power across the economy.
  2. Iran’s GDP is on track for its steepest annual contraction since the mid-1980s Iran-Iraq War nadir, a deterioration that surpasses every recessionary episode across four intervening decades.

Related Articles:

  • Soaring Diesel Prices Rip Across The US Economy — Diesel prices have reached $5.47 per gallon, near an all-time high, as global supply disruptions push the cost of refining diesel above crude oil to record levels.
  • For the Oil Market, the Strait of Hormuz Isn’t Closed — At least 5m barrels of oil per day continue to transit the Strait of Hormuz, with the true volume likely higher as growing oil spills from tanker attacks indicate ongoing vessel traffic despite efforts to close the waterway.
  • U.S. Economy Less Vulnerable To Geopolitical Oil Price Shocks Than In The Past — Kilian, et al find that the impact of an energy shock on US real GDP growth has fallen to 1/20th of what it would have been in 1980, due both to the declining…
  • Inflation
  • Energy
  • GDP
  • Politics
  • Security

A Return To Monetarism?

AI Summary. Excessive money growth reliably signals inflationary pressure regardless of whether its source is monetary or fiscal policy, because any fiscal expansion that increases money supply is captured in price-gap models tracking monetary aggregates.

Peter Ireland, Stephen Miran and Nouriel Roubini Hudson Bay Capital
Date Posted:
July 16, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

Ireland, Miran, and Roubini compare the actual price level to the predictions of an equilibrium model relating prices to money supply. Predicted inflation hit a 60-year high in 2020–21, months before inflation surged and then crashed once the Fed hiked.

Does excess money growth always predict inflation regardless of its source?

The graphs in Figure 3 show quite clearly how the surge in money growth starting in 2020 and continuing in 2021 put enormous upward pressure on inflation, to a degree unprecedented in the post-1967 sample period. And while the large and negative price gaps that followed in 2022 and 2023 are likewise indicative of strong disinflationary pressures applied through subsequent monetary tightening, one can’t see these graphs without asking: Had Federal Open Market Committee members been monitoring measures of money growth with the help of the P-star [price target based on monetary aggregates] model, might they have ended QE and raised interest rates sooner and more quickly, thereby avoiding at least some of the post-2020 inflation? Of course, massive fiscal expansion was another driver of the post-2020 surge in inflation, as suggested by fiscal theories of the price level. The model simply observes that regardless of its originating source, excessive money growth signals that inappropriate macroeconomic policies are fueling higher inflation. Fiscal expansions that expand money supply will be reflected in a P-star model.

Related Articles:

  • Money and Inflation — Jesper Rangvid argues that monetarist theory would have predicted deflation from the recent contraction in the M2 money supply. Continuing inflation leaves him…
  • State Dependence of Monetary Policy During Global Supply Chain Disruptions — Bai, et al present evidence that btw 2017 and 2023, monetary tightening reduced US inflation relatively more than output during periods of global supply chain…
  • What Next for r*? A Capital Market Equilibrium Perspective On The Natural Rate of Interest — In a base model, steady state r* is still ~0, suggesting that “secular stagnation” may not be a thing of the past. AI expansion and inflation risk could each…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy

Home Alone: Inflation And The New Fed Chair

AI Summary. Current inflation conditions — including labor market tightness, price pressures, supply chain stress, and the output gap — align more closely with historical conditions that prompted the Federal Reserve to raise rates than to cut them. Averaging multiple monetary policy benchmarks points to an optimal interest rate range of 4.00%–4.85%

Michael Cembalest J.P. Morgan
Date Posted:
May 27, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Cembalest notes labor market tightness, price pressures in the manufacturing sector and the implied output gap are “much closer to conditions that have historically prompted the Fed to raise policy rates rather than to lower them.”

Does current inflation warrant higher rates than the Fed currently plans?

Core argument: Monetary policy rules average a 4.00–4.85% Fed Funds range vs. the current 3.50–3.75%, indicating tightening bias drives futures pricing toward.

Inflation indicators the Fed watches include labor market tightness, price pressures in the manufacturing sector, supply chain tightness and the “output gap” which measures how far actual growth is above/below potential growth. [The two] charts plot these four variables at the time of prior Fed decisions to increase or cut policy rates; green dots indicate when the Fed cut, red dots indicate when the Fed tightened and yellow circles show today’s values. In other words: current values are much closer to conditions that have historically prompted the Fed to raise policy rates rather than to lower them. That may be why the futures curve is now pricing in Fed hikes instead of the cuts that were priced in at the start of the year. Superwonky: averaging several different monetary rules of thumb (Taylor rules, inertial, alternative r*, forward-looking) yields a Fed Funds range of 4.00% - 4.85% compared to the current range of 3.50% - 3.75%.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Monetary policy rules average a 4.00–4.85% Fed Funds range vs. the current 3.50–3.75%, indicating tightening bias drives futures pricing toward.
  2. Labor market tightness, manufacturing price pressures, supply chain constraints, and positive output gaps align with historical rate-increase conditions, leading markets.

Related Articles:

  • US Consumer Sentiment Slides to Record Low on Price Concerns — US consumer sentiment has fallen to a record low, driven by rising price expectations of 4.8% over the next year and 3.9% over the long term.
  • The Dangerous Brew That’s Rattling Bond Markets — Government borrowing across major economies has reached unprecedented peacetime levels, with U.S. deficits averaging 6.2% of GDP from 2023–2026 versus 4.1% in the early 2000s. Since 2020, economic shocks have consistently pushed inflation higher rather than lower, forcing long-term interest rates up and adding an estimated $
  • Are Government Bonds Safe in Times of War and Pandemic? — US government bonds, normally safe assets, become risky in times of war because of negative real returns due to bursts of inflation. As in the fiscal theory of…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy

US Consumer Sentiment Slides to Record Low on Price Concerns

AI Summary. US consumer sentiment has fallen to a record low, driven by rising price expectations of 4.8% over the next year and 3.9% over the long term.

María Paula Mijares Torres Bloomberg
Date Posted:
May 26, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index hit a record low in May, falling ~10% month over month. Consumers foresee prices advancing 4.8% over the next year. Inflation and high gas prices have long been major causes of sentiment drops.

Are rising price expectations undermining consumer confidence?

Core argument: Michigan consumer sentiment fell 5 pts to 44.8, undershooting all economist forecasts, driving heightened recession risk perceptions.

The University of Michigan’s final May sentiment index decreased 5 points to 44.8 from April. The gauge was weaker than all projections in a Bloomberg survey of economists as well as the preliminary reading of 48.2. Consumers expect prices to rise an annualized 3.9% over the next five to 10 years, up from 3.5% in April and the highest in seven months. They also saw costs advancing 4.8% over the next year.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Michigan consumer sentiment fell 5 pts to 44.8, undershooting all economist forecasts, driving heightened recession risk perceptions.
  2. Five-to-10-year inflation expectations surged to 3.9% from 3.5% month-over-month, the highest in seven months, leading to eroded purchasing power confidence.
  3. One-year price expectations of 4.8% vs. 3.9% long-term forecasts signal consumers expect near-term cost acceleration to outpace eventual moderation.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — US consumer sentiment is significantly lower than expected based on unemployment and inflation. Alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs…
  • The Dangerous Brew That’s Rattling Bond Markets — Government borrowing across major economies has reached unprecedented peacetime levels, with U.S. deficits averaging 6.2% of GDP from 2023–2026 versus 4.1% in the early 2000s. Since 2020, economic shocks have consistently pushed inflation higher rather than lower, forcing long-term interest rates up and adding an estimated $
  • $50 Trillion Safe-Haven Debt Market Upended by Iran War Inflation — The $50tn market for Group of Seven sovereign bonds is under pressure as investors price in persistent inflation, driving long-term yields to their highest level in two decades. Rising government debt and unresolved post-pandemic price pressures are compounding the risk, forcing expectations of higher interest rates to contain inflation.
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Politics

Where Did All the Affordable Cars Go?

AI Summary. The average new car costs ~$50,000, with sub-$20,000 options nearly extinct, while repair costs have risen 15%, making car ownership unaffordable for budget consumers. Removing import barriers on lower-cost foreign vehicles would expand access, as comparable Chinese models sell for ~$20,000 less than U.S. equivalents while offering superior performance

Clifford Winston New York Times
Date Posted:
April 15, 2026
Is Database:
Database

In 2012, there were ~12 new cars available for around $25,000 in real terms in the US. Today, there are only 4 new cars available at that price point. Clifford Winston notes allowing Chinese imports would likely increase that number to 11.

How Can Lower-Cost Foreign Vehicles Improve Car Affordability?

Core argument: Average new car prices reached $50,000, up from sub-$20,000 availability a decade ago, driving affordability crisis for budget consumers.

The average transaction price for a new car now sits around $50,000. In December, it became just about impossible to find one for less than $20,000. For anyone on a budget, an aging car is a trap. Auto repair costs jumped 15% in the last year alone, driven by the complexity of modern sensors and labor shortages. An average trip to the mechanic now costs roughly $840. To fix the problem, policymakers must overturn what has been for decades the third rail in American politics. It is time to stop coddling Detroit automakers [and open] the American market to cars made in China and elsewhere. Chinese cars aren’t just cheaper than the American alternatives. They’re often better. Take BYD’s slightly more upscale Seal sedan. It’s similar to Tesla’s Model 3, introduced nine years ago. But the Seal costs roughly $20,000 less than the Model 3. The Seal’s premium model offers substantially more horsepower, and its battery not only lasts longer, it can also be 80% charged in just 37 minutes. The Seal isn’t just a budget alternative; it is a more advanced machine.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Average new car prices reached $50,000, up from sub-$20,000 availability a decade ago, driving affordability crisis for budget consumers.
  2. Auto repair costs jumped 15% annually to $840 per visit, as sensor complexity and labor shortages result in escalating ownership.

Related Articles:

  • ‘It’s Just Crazy’: High Car Payments Make Ownership Feel Impossible — The mean payment on a new car was $774 in January, up from $588 in January 2021 – an ~32% increase, outpacing the overall 24% increase in the price…
  • Inflation Is Down, But Americans Still Feel an Affordability Squeeze — The US price level has risen 26% since January 2020, leaving Americans’ average weekly real wages up only 3.7% over five years.
  • Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States — Tariffs implemented during the 2018-2019 trade war were “at best a wash, and may have been mildly negative” in terms of employment, but increased political…
  • Inflation
  • China
  • GDP
    • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit
    • Trade (not deficits)
  • Politics

Inflation Is Down, But Americans Still Feel an Affordability Squeeze

Mark Niquette, Jennah Haque and Jade Khatib Bloomberg
Date Posted:
February 19, 2026
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

The US price level has risen 26% since January 2020, leaving Americans’ average weekly real wages up only 3.7% over five years.

The average American’s weekly pay has risen 31% over the past six years. That’s faster than prices across that period, so Americans in the aggregate aren’t losing ground — but inflation wiped out most of their income gains. For low earners, who saw the fastest wage growth after the pandemic, the last year or so has been tougher and they’re now lagging behind. [Grocery] prices are up about 30% since January 2020, about in line with average wage growth. But Americans had gotten used to paying roughly the same at the supermarket each week in the pre-pandemic years. Lately, they’ve been forced to stomach a bigger bill with almost every visit. A double-punch has pushed homeownership out of reach for many Americans: First the pandemic-era surge in prices, and then a steep run-up in mortgage rates. A young married couple now needs 70% of their annual household income to afford the average down payment, according to Goldman Sachs economist Elsie Peng, up from 58% in 2019 and 45% in 2000. [Further], the average principal and interest payment has doubled since early 2020, according to the National Association of Realtors. Employee premiums for family health insurance have risen 23% in the past five years to almost $6,900 on average. And more than 20 million people who rely on Affordable Care Act plans face a hike in their premiums after Congress let Covid-era subsidies expire.

Related Articles:

  • The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly — US consumer sentiment is significantly lower than expected based on unemployment and inflation. Alternative measures of inflation that include borrowing costs…
  • Why Do We Dislike Inflation? — New survey research shows that people dislike inflation because they believe that it is associated with declining real wages and falling living standards…
  • A Mystery in Fixed Income — U.S. 10-year yields are higher today than at the start of the Fed’s cutting cycle in September 2024. Sløk notes that the “pattern of rising long-term interest…
  • Inflation
  • GDP
  • Monetary Policy
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms