Recommended Weekend Reads
How Much Will GLP-1s Disrupt the Economy?; The Impact of Trump’s Trade Policy on Exchange Rates; and China, India, and the US in 2025
January 3 - 5, 2025
Please find our recommended reads from reports and articles we read in the last week. We hope you find these useful and that you have a relaxing weekend. And let us know if you or someone you know wants to be added to our distribution list.
The Economics of GLP-1s and Aging
Ozempic economics: how GLP-1s will disrupt the economy in 2025 Catherine Rampell/Washington Post
A new technology is disrupting the economy. Even experts don’t entirely understand how it works, its full range of uses and what its unintended consequences could be. No, it’s not artificial intelligence; I’m talking about weight-loss drugs. With adult obesity rates falling last year for the first time in more than a decade, drugs such as Ozempic and Zepbound are already reshaping Americans’ waistlines. Now, they’re poised to reshape the entire economy, too. As of May, roughly 1 in 8 American adults had tried GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s for short). This percentage has almost certainly grown since then, as telehealth companies, “medi-spas” and compounding pharmacies have aggressively marketed GLP-1 prescriptions. We’re only just beginning to learn the full universe of effects for this class of drugs. Originally developed to treat Type 2 diabetes, GLP-1s were soon discovered to be effective in treating obesity and managing weight loss. Now there’s an ever-growing list of other potential uses (on- and off-label), including for treating heart disease, sleep apnea, Alzheimer’s, substance abuse and maybe even gambling addiction.
Will weight-loss drugs lead to upheaval in the sugar market? While many traders have brushed off concerns, the potential impact is clear Financial Times
The health risks of too much sugar have been made clear, but the billion-dollar global market to supply it is thriving. Sales of sweet treats remain strong, and waistlines keep expanding. Could weight-loss drugs now succeed where governments, scientists and doctors have failed: crushing demand for sugar? So-called glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) contained in such drugs as Wegovy, Mounjaro and Ozempic curb users’ appetites and are being hailed as game changers for tackling obesity and potentially a range of other conditions, from diabetes to addiction. They could also lead to an upheaval in sugar markets.
The No-Hunger Games: How GLP-1 Medication Adoption is Changing Consumer Food Purchases Sylvia Hrstakeva/Jura Liakonyte, & Leo Feler, Cornell College of Business Research Paper
Abstract: We examine how consumers modify their food purchasing behavior after adopting appetite-suppressing GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as Ozempic and Wegovy. Utilizing a unique dataset linking survey responses on medication adoption and timing with transaction data from a representative U.S. household panel, we document the prevalence, motivations, and demographic patterns of GLP-1 adoption, including off-label use. Households with at least one GLP-1 user reduce grocery spending by approximately 6% within six months of adoption, with higher-income households reducing spending by nearly 9%. These reductions are driven by significantly larger decreases in purchases of calorie-dense, processed items, including a 11% decline in savory snacks. In contrast, we observe directional increases in nutrient-dense purchases, such as yogurt and fresh produce. We also examine food-away-from-home spending at limited-service establishments, such as fast-food chains and coffee shops, finding reductions at breakfast and especially during dinner times. Our findings highlight the potential for GLP-1 medications to significantly reshape consumer food demand, a trend with increasingly important implications for the food industry as adoption continues to grow.
On the Limits of Chronological Age Rainer Kotschy/David E. Brown/Andrew Scott – National Bureau of Economic Research
Abstract: Analysis of population aging is typically framed in terms of chronological age. However, chronological age itself is not necessarily deeply informative about the aging process. This paper reviews literature and conducts empirical analyses aimed at investigating whether chronological age is a reliable proxy for physiological functioning when used in models of economic behavior and outcomes. We show that chronological age is an unreliable proxy for physiological functioning due to appreciable differences in how aging unfolds across people, health domains, and over time. We further demonstrate that chronological age either fails to predict economic variables when used in lieu of physiological functioning, or that it predicts additional effects on economic behavior and outcomes that are largely unrelated to physiological aging. Continued reliance on chronological age as a proxy for physiological functioning might impede the ability of societies to fully harness the benefits of increasing longevity.
Trump’s Trade Policy and Exchange Rates
Tariffs and Exchange Rates (and Stephen Miran) Stan Veuger/American Enterprise Institute
In a recent policy paper, Stephen Miran – who was recently nominated by President-elect Trump to serve as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors – discussed at some length the incidence of tariffs. Miran’s objective is to convince readers that tariffs are not as harmful as is often argued. He argues that to fully understand the impact of a tariff on domestic consumers, we cannot limit ourselves to an analysis of what happens to domestic prices. We also need to consider what happens to the exchange rate. Veuger argues that this needs to be considered in more concrete terms, using as a scenario the US imposing a 50% tariff on washing machines from Europe. It has become common for commentators to suggest, Veuger argues, that this will mean US importers will pay 50% more for washing machines, and this price increase is passed on to US consumers. How does the analysis change if the euro depreciates by 5% as a result of the tariff, because demand for imports from Europe has gone down? Assuming euro-denominated prices do not change, US importers will now pay 45% more for washing machines, not 50%. But the currency depreciation affects all imports, so US importers will now pay 5% less for bananas. Veuger says this has (at least) five implications which he goes through in his commentary.
Currency Wars and Trade Kris James Mitchener & Kirste Wandschneider/National Bureau of Economic Research
The Great Depression is the canonical case of a widespread currency war, with more than 70 countries devaluing their currencies relative to gold between 1929 and 1936. What were the currency war’s effects on trade flows? We use newly-compiled, high-frequency bilateral trade data and gravity models that account for when and whether trade partners had devalued to identify the effects of the currency war on global trade. Our empirical estimates show that a country’s trade was reduced by more than 21% following devaluation. This negative and statistically significant decline in trade suggests that the currency war destroyed the trade-enhancing benefits of the global monetary standard, ending regime coordination and increasing trade costs.
China, India, and the U.S in 2025
After the Fall: China’s Economy in 2025 The Rhodium Group
China’s 2024 claim that GDP growth was on track to meet high targets was impossible to reconcile with increasingly frantic efforts to prop up a flagging economy all year long. Collapsing property construction slowed growth to a crawl in 2022 and 2023, and in 2024 the spillover from real estate sidelined local government investment and consumption as well. By our estimates, China’s GDP growth in 2024 improved modestly to around 2.4% to 2.8%, well below than official claims of nearly 5%. If it stimulates domestic demand with some urgency and ramps up debt, we think China could get to 3-4.5% growth in 2025, reaching the high end of that range only if everything falls in Beijing’s favor. But that is the very top of—or above—the potential growth ceiling until Beijing fixes long-festering structural problems.
The US And China In Indian Grand Strategy Tanvi Madan/ India’s World Indian policymakers have recognized that China and the U.S. are among the most—if not the most—consequential countries for India’s interests. They have thought about how China (the near behemoth) and the U.S. (the far behemoth) could and would affect, in both, positive or negative ways, India’s quest for security, prosperity, status and autonomy. The roles Indian leaders have envisioned for Beijing and for Washington in their strategy have neither been static nor de-linked from each other. The roles China and the U.S. have ended up playing have depended on several factors, including the dynamics between them that affected their view of India. That, in turn, has shaped New Delhi’s options as it sought to achieve its objectives.
The Challenges Behind China’s Global South Policies Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
At the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, China unveiled eight initiatives to support the Global South, including advancing technology connectivity and cooperating on poverty reduction, food security, and climate change. China’s initiatives came as no surprise. As its tensions with the Global North intensify—particularly in areas of economic competition, technological rivalry, and security issues such as the Russia-Ukraine war—the Global South, with approximately 85 percent of the world’s population, assumes great significance in China’s foreign policy. Facing a weak domestic market, increasing trade restrictions from the West, and growing tensions with the United States, China seeks to mobilize support from the Global South to counterbalance the West in economic, security, and ideological challenges. However, China’s Global South policy is increasingly confronted by its limits in trade and investment and its self-deceiving security-nexus approach.
Americans foresee a somewhat challenging year ahead for the country, based on their predictions for various aspects of U.S. affairs and daily life. Majorities of U.S. adults think 2025 will be a year of political conflict, economic difficulty, international discord, increasing power for China and Russia, and a rising federal budget deficit. However, there is at least some optimism for 2025, as 66% of U.S. adults expect gains in the stock market, 54% think there will be increasing or full employment, and 52% predict reasonable price growth. Meanwhile, Americans are essentially tied in their projections for what 2025 will hold when it comes to the United States’ power in the world, the number of labor strikes, taxes and crime rates.
