Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…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
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…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
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…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 34
  • Primary focus 10
Showing 10 database articles primarily about Security
Currently filtering by:
  • Remove Security
  • Remove "primary topics only" restriction
  • Remove 'Database'
Show all 7,212 articles
For whatever topics you select (currently: Security):
Choose search scope

Your importance filter 'Database' shows fewer articles.

Remove filters to see full article counts

US Warns Japan Of Severe Delays In Tomahawk Deliveries Due To Iran War

AI Summary. US military operations against Iran consumed over 1,000 Tomahawk missiles from a prewar stockpile of ~3,100, straining production capacity and delaying foreign deliveries by up to two years, given that manufacturing takes ~4 years from funding to delivery.

Demetri Sevastopulo Financial Times
Date Posted:
May 28, 2026

The US has notified Japan to expect “serious delays” in the delivery of 400 Tomahawk missiles Tokyo ordered in 2024, and were expected to start arriving in 2028, due to concerns about US magazine depth after the Iran war

The US has notified Japan to expect “serious delays” in the delivery of 400 Tomahawk missiles Tokyo ordered in...

Is military demand outpacing missile production capacity?

Core argument: Four-year production timelines for Tomahawk manufacturing result in supply constraints that extend Japan’s expected April 2028 delivery date to 2030.

Japan had expected to receive two batches of 200 missiles each by April 2028. One person familiar with the situation said Washington had warned that the delays could add as much as two years to the current delivery schedule. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the US fired more than 1,000 Tomahawks out of an estimated prewar inventory of 3,100 during the five weeks of military operations against Iran. CSIS said that in took roughly four years to deliver Tomahawks to the US military from the time Congress has provided funding.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Four-year production timelines for Tomahawk manufacturing result in supply constraints that extend Japan’s expected April 2028 delivery date to 2030.
  2. Japan had expected to receive two batches of 200 missiles each by April 2028.

Related Articles:

  • Last Rounds? Status of Key Munitions at the Iran War Ceasefire — U.S. military stockpiles of key munitions are critically depleted after recent combat operations, with rebuilding to pre-war levels estimated to take one to four years. Shortfalls that already existed for a large-scale conflict have worsened, meaning adequate stockpile levels for a major war would take even longer to achieve.
  • The First 36 Hours of War Consumed Over 3,000 U.S.-Israeli Munitions — A Colorado School of Mines analysis of the munitions used in the first 36 hours of the war estimates the “mineral bill” and highlights the current…
  • The U.S. Wants to Break China’s Drone Dominance. Here’s Where It Will Struggle — China controls 80% of the U.S. commercial drone market, with dominance rooted in its monopoly over battery and motor supply chains that domestic producers cannot replicate at scale for a decade or more.
  • Security
Previous articleMay 28, 2026The Fairest Way to Reform Social Security May Also Be the Worst Way to Grow the EconomyBiggs argues that “fair” approaches to restoring Social Security solvency – those that do not cut already accrued benefits – are less effective than “unfair” ones that do, because the latter incentivize increased work effort, raising growth and revenue.Next articleMay 29, 2026The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker PayAt 51%, labor’s share of gross domestic income is at its lowest level since 1947. Corporate profits’ share of gross domestic income is now 12.1%, its highest level since 1950. In real terms, hourly wages are up 3% since Q4 2019, while profits have risen 50%.
Showing 9 database articles primarily about Security

Defense Spending: Macroeconomic Consequences and Trade-Offs

AI Summary. Defense spending booms raise real economic output, lift inflation briefly, and widen trade deficits as import demand rises, while boosting both public and private investment and improving long-run productivity through innovation spillovers and private research crowding-in.

Hippolyte Balima, Jared Bebee, Colombe Ladreit, Andresa Lagerborg, et al. International Monetary Fund
Date Posted:
April 8, 2026
Is Database:
Database

An IMF report notes defense spending booms are associated with an increase in TFP “over longer horizons, consistent with evidence showing that the R&D component of defense spending can boost innovation and crowd in private R&D spending.”

Core argument: Defense stimulus widens trade deficits as imports surge while exports remain flat, creating external imbalances despite stronger overall demand.

Defense spending booms [periods when the two-year moving average of defense spending increases 1pp of GDP] in peacetime are followed by a sizable increase in real GDP and by a short-lived rise in inflation. Consistent with a large share of the stimulus being allocated to personnel and operating expenses, government consumption rises by about 9% within three years. Total investment shows a comparable positive response, reflecting both higher public investment in defense equipment and infrastructure and increased private investment, particularly in defense-related industries. Turning to the external sector, stimulus-driven demand leads to wider external imbalances, as both the current account and trade balance deteriorate. Imports accelerate—reflecting leakages from defense spending and stronger demand for foreign goods—while exports remain broadly unchanged. Defense spending booms are associated with a subsequent increase in the stock of capital, in line with the documented boost to investment, and an increase in total factor productivity, which may be explained by changes in capacity utilization and learning by necessity, as firms adapt to surging demand by improving productivity when facing capacity constraints. Total factor productivity [loses] its statistical significance once capacity utilization is controlled for. However, defense spending booms are followed by greater total factor productivity over longer horizons, consistent with evidence showing that the R&D component of defense spending can boost innovation and crowd in private R&D spending.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Defense stimulus widens trade deficits as imports surge while exports remain flat, creating external imbalances despite stronger overall demand.
  2. Long-term productivity gains from defense spending reflect innovation spillovers and private sector research development crowding, beyond short-term capacity utilization effects.

Related Articles:

  • The Intellectual Spoils of War? Defense RD, Productivity and International Spillovers — Government-funded R&D, particularly in defense, significantly influences private sector R&D and productivity growth. A 10% increase in…
  • The Cold War and the U.S. Labor Market — Defense spending played a major role in sustaining tight labor markets for low-skill workers following the Second World War. Drops in procurement spending…
  • Will Higher Defence Spending Boost The European Economy? — As the short-run fiscal multiplier for defence spending is likely <1, the EU’s increased defense budget will have large effects on GDP only if focused on…
  • Security
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Government Spending
  • GDP
    • Inflation
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

The Cold War and the U.S. Labor Market

Ilyana Kuziemko, Donato Onorato and Suresh Naidu National Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
March 31, 2026
Is Database:
Database

Defense spending played a major role in sustaining tight labor markets for low-skill workers following the Second World War. Drops in procurement spending between the 1950s and the 1990s explain between 18 and 30% of the decline in manufacturing employment.

We have shown that in the decades immediately following World War II, the Cold War was a major factor sustaining tight labor markets. On the labor demand side, military procurement increased demand for manufacturing workers and put downward pressure on the share of income flowing to the richest households. We can explain roughly between 18 and 30% of the decline in manufacturing and just under ten percent of the rise in top-ten inequality by the 1950s to 1990s decline in procurement spending. We thus conclude that Cold War procurement—while under-studied in the modern, quantitative economics literature on inequality—played a major role in sustaining tight labor markets for low-skill workers in the decades immediately after World War II and creating political coalitions in support of hawkish foreign policy and military expenditure. Figure 8 panel (a) shows that manufacturing employment is highly sensitive to defense spending, consistent with our state-year evidence. As is well known, manufacturing booms during World War II, but, less discussed, plummets in the years between World War II and Korea. After bouncing back during Korea, it slowly declines alongside the declining defense share of GDP until both series experience an uptick during Vietnam. Overall, the relationship remains highly significant even after taking out a linear time trend and dropping the World War II period.

Related Articles:

  • The Intellectual Spoils of War? Defense RD, Productivity and International Spillovers — Government-funded R&D, particularly in defense, significantly influences private sector R&D and productivity growth. A 10% increase in…
  • The Old Economy Begins To Take Its Revenge — Since October 2025, equities tied to energy and infrastructure are up 30–50%, while technology related stocks are down 5–10%. Jeff Currie argues we are in a…
  • 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…
  • Security
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Government Spending
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment
  • Workforce
    • Unemployment/Participation

The First 36 Hours of War Consumed Over 3,000 U.S.-Israeli Munitions

Macdonald Amoah, Morgan Bazilian, and Jahara Matisek Foreign Policy
Date Posted:
March 6, 2026
Is Database:
Database

A Colorado School of Mines analysis of the munitions used in the first 36 hours of the war estimates the “mineral bill” and highlights the current and target timelines to replenish these systems, noting critical minerals “cannot be surged.”

Beyond the sheer volume of munitions, the loss of high-value assets introduces another layer of complexity. The destruction of two advanced U.S. radars, the AN/FPS-132 in Qatar and the AN/TPS-59 in Bahrain, highlights a problem where the total weight of the “mineral bill” is less of a concern than the extreme fragility of the supply chain and the extensive timelines for replacement. Per our analysis, for the AN/FPS-132, it will take five to eight years for Raytheon to build a new radar at a cost of $1.1 billion. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin will require at least 12 to 24 months and an estimated $50 million to $75 million to replace the AN/TPS-59, based on the original Bahrain Foreign Military Sales contract adjusted for inflation. The biggest issue for the defense industrial base will be sourcing the 77.3 kilograms of gallium needed for both systems, a material for which China controls 98% of the global supply. This is not to mention the 30,610 kilograms of copper that will also be needed, a commodity facing surging demand from the technology sector.

Related Articles:

  • Why China Keeps Winning The Trade War — Chris Miller argues that “at the very least,” Beijing’s rare earth export controls will “drive up prices and make non-Chinese manufacturing…
  • China Hatches Plan to Keep U.S. Military From Getting Its Rare-Earth Magnets — While China is planning on easing exports of rare earths, a “validated end-user” system will keep them out of the American defense supply chain…
  • How U.S. Defense Industry Dodged a Rare-Earth Shortage After China’s Curbs — A stash of samarium nitrate in France can provide a workaround of more than a year for the American defense industry in the face of Chinese export controls.
  • Security
  • Productivity
    • Investment

How Russia’s Fatalities Compare With Ukraine’s

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
February 25, 2026
Is Database:
Database

The Economist estimates one in 25 Russian men btw the ages of 18 and 49 have been killed or wounded in Ukraine since 2022. CSIS estimates Ukrainian casualties at one in 16. Russian losses are escalating; today it is “losing more men than it can recruit.”

Our model suggests that Russian casualties are now between 1.1m and 1.4m, of whom 230,000-430,000 are dead. That would mean one in 25 Russian men between the ages of 18 and 49 may have been killed or severely wounded since the start of the full-scale war. There are too few reliable estimates of Ukrainian deaths to construct a similar meta-estimate. One single estimate, published on January 27th by CSIS, a think-tank, put total Ukrainian casualties at 600,000 as of December, including 100,000-140,000 dead. Though much lower than Russia’s casualties in absolute terms, as a share of its population it is higher—equivalent to about one in 16 Ukrainian men aged 18-49 before the war. These figures exclude civilian deaths, for which reliable data are scarcer still. Ukrainian losses appeared heaviest early in the war: American officials estimated that 70,000 soldiers had already been killed by August 2023. Russia’s campaign, by contrast, has only grown bloodier. Some estimates suggest that it is now losing roughly 1,000 soldiers a day. Our modelling shows that as many may have died in the past year as in the first three combined. It is losing more men than it can recruit.

Related Articles:

  • Russian War Spending May Be Maxed Out — Matt Klein argues that Russian government spending, inclusive of off-balance-sheet military expenditures, will be difficult to sustain with oil prices at their…
  • Russians Shun Putin’s Plea for More Babies as Population Shrinks — Russia’s population shrank by ~ 600,000 last year, the fastest pace since the pandemic. Births were down 3.4% to the lowest level since 1999. “Its…
  • The Russian Paradox: So Much Education, So Little Human Capital — In 2019 – prior to the pandemic and the current stage of the Russo-Ukraine War – life expectancy for a 15-year-old Russian man was on par with his…
  • Security
  • Politics
  • Workforce
    • Demographics

Drones Are Key to Winning Wars Now. The U.S. Makes Hardly Any.

Farah Stockman New York Times
Date Posted:
July 14, 2025
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important

China’s DJI can manufacture millions of drones a year; about 500 American drone manufacturers are collectively building fewer than 100,000 drones annually.

China’s DJI can manufacture millions of drones a year; about 500 American drone manufacturers are collectively...
DJI accounts for about 70% of all commercial drones sold globally for hobby and industrial use, such as aerial photography, package delivery and weather research. The company declined to share market data, but industry experts estimate that DJI’s output far exceeds that of any other drone manufacturer. “No one even comes close,” said Bobby Sakaki, chief executive of UAS NEXUS, a drone industry consultant. “DJI can make millions of drones per year. That is a hundred times more than anybody in the United States can make.” About 500 companies manufacture drones in the United States, producing fewer than 100,000 a year, according to Ryan Carver, communications manager for the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, a nonprofit organization of industry professionals.

Related Articles:

  • China Made Millions of Drones. Now It Has to Find Uses For Them — China produces 70–80% of commercial drones and accounted for 79% of approved drone patents globally in 2024.
  • Ukraine Drone Strikes Hit Nuclear Bombers Deep Inside Russia — Drones released from trucks destroyed or damaged 40 Russian aircraft, including long-range bombers. Kiev claimed the Russian losses were over $2B.
  • A US Drone Maker Tries to Take Back the Country’s Skies — The leading US drone manufacturer Skydio has built a cumulative 45,000 drones, a quantity that Chinese drone leader DJI builds every few weeks. The production…
  • Security
  • Productivity
    • Investment

Germany Backs Donald Trump Goal For Nato To Spend 5% Of GDP On Defence

Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and John Paul Rathbone Financial Times
Date Posted:
May 15, 2025
Is Database:
Database

Germany will aim to raise spending on defense to 5% of GDP by 2032 by increasing “hard military spending” from this year’s 2% to 3.5%, while adding 1.5% of GDP of “related spending, including infrastructure and cyber security.”

Speaking at a meeting in Antalya on Thursday, German foreign minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin was “following” Trump on his demand that Nato allies reach a 5% goal. Currently the alliance has a 2% spending target. Wadephul also signalled that the way the country would meet the target would be by embracing a proposal by Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte. The Dutchman has called for Nato members to reach 3.5% of GDP on “hard military spending” by 2032, to which he has suggested adding 1.5% of GDP on “related spending” including infrastructure and cyber security.

Related Articles:

  • Friedrich Merz Wins Second Vote to Become Germany’s Chancellor — Friedrich Merz became Germany’s chancellor after surprisingly falling short on the first round vote, which highlighted the tensions inherent in the coalition…
  • From Trains to Tanks: Germany’s Rearmament Marks Industrial Shift — Germany’s historic rearmament marks an industrial shift for a country that has lost ~250,000 manufacturing jobs since the onset of the pandemic, adding at…
  • German Army Struggles to Get Gen Z Recruits ‘Ready for War’ — Germany may face recruiting challenges to achieve its goal of 203k active troops in 2031. The overall size of the armed forces slightly declined last year, as…
  • Security
  • Productivity
    • Investment
© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms