Connect with us

Economics

Americans’ love affair with big cars is killing them

Published

2 years ago

on

Witnesses said the driver showed no signs of slowing down. On June 3rd Nicole Louthain and her six-year-old daughter were stopped at a red light in Grand Forks, North Dakota when they were struck from behind by Travis Bell. Such crashes are not uncommon—around 10,000 rear-end collisions occur in America every day. What made this one noteworthy was that the vehicles involved were so unevenly matched. Ms Louthain was driving a Ford Focus, a compact car weighing around 3,000lb (1,360kg), whereas Mr Bell was in a 7,000lb Ram 3500 “heavy duty” pickup. Alas, the disparity proved deadly. Although Mr Bell was not harmed, Ms Louthain suffered serious injuries. (Court documents later showed that Mr Bell had been drinking.) Her daughter Katarina was air-lifted to a nearby hospital where she died two days later.

The crash in Grand Forks helps to illustrate a sad truth about America’s roads. For all the safety features available in cars today to help them avoid crashes, when they happen they are still often determined by the laws of physics. When two vehicles collide, it is usually the heavier one that prevails. This advantage has changed little over time. Thirty years ago when a passenger car crashed with a pickup truck or sport-utility vehicle (SUV), the driver of the car was roughly four times as likely to die; today this driver dies around three times as often. Critics say this is too high a price to pay for roomier interiors and more powerful engines. Carmakers insist they are giving consumers what they want. An analysis by The Economist shows that weight remains a critical factor in car crashes in America. Reining in the heaviest vehicles would save lives.

Chevrolet Silverado 5,774lb

Chevrolet Silverado 5,774lb

Chevrolet Silverado 5,774lb

Mismatches between big and small cars on America’s roads are not new. In the 1960s the 1,400lb Mini Cooper shared the road with the 5,000lb Cadillac Fleetwood and the 5,500lb Lincoln Continental. But whereas today heavier vehicles attract the bulk of the criticism, back then it was lighter ones that drew scrutiny. Indeed many cars of the time were woefully unsafe. In 1969 America’s National Highway Safety Bureau conducted crash tests on a Subaru 360 and a King Midget, two sub-1,000lb “mini-cars”. When pitted against vehicles twice their size, the tiny cars crumpled like soda cans.

Over the years policymakers struggled to solve this mismatch, or “incompatibility”, problem. Often, they made things worse. When Congress set fuel-efficiency standards in the wake of the oil shocks of the 1970s, cars were swiftly downsized. Within ten years cars shed 1,000lb; trucks dropped 500lb. Although these changes saved motorists money at the pump, they also led to more traffic fatalities. A paper published in 1989 by researchers at the Brookings Institution and the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the shift towards smaller, lighter cars in the 70s and 80s boosted fatalities by 14-27%. A report released in 2002 by America’s National Research Council concluded that the downsizing of America’s fleet led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

As cars got bigger, regulators shifted their focus from the lightest vehicles to the heaviest ones. The impetus for this was the rise of SUVs. Between 1990 and 2005 the market share of such vehicles in America grew from 6% to 26% pushing up the weight of an average new car from 3,400lb to nearly 4,100lb. As suburban soccer moms traded in their station wagons for Ford Expeditions, many felt safer. And they were right. “One of the reasons the roads are much safer is because vehicles… [are] bigger and they’re heavier than they were,” Adrian Lund of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry research organisation, told conference-goers in 2011. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, even advocated for supersizing America’s fleet to improve safety, writing in the Wall Street Journal that large vehicles are “the solution, not the problem”.

But researchers quickly learned that the extra protection provided by heavier vehicles comes at the expense of others on the road. In a paper published in 2004 Michelle White of the University of California, San Diego estimated that for every deadly crash avoided by an SUV or pickup truck, there are an additional 4.3 among other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Another paper in 2012 by Shanjun Li of Resources for the Future, a think-tank, estimated that when a car crashes with an SUV or pickup, rather than another car, the fatality rate of the driver increases by 31%. In 2014 Michael Anderson and Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley estimated that when two cars crash, a 1,000lb increase in the weight of one vehicle raises the fatality rate in the other by 47%.

Researchers also found that the safety benefits of vehicle weight suffer from diminishing returns. This means that, once vehicles reach a certain weight, packing on more pounds provides little additional safety, while inflicting more harm on others. “At some point heavy vehicles cost more lives…than they save,” wrote Brian O’Neill and Sergey Kyrychenko of the IIHS in 2004. This makes intuitive sense, says Mr Anderson of Berkeley. “Once you outweigh the other guy by a factor of two times, is adding 200 pounds more really going to make a difference for you? Probably not. But it’ll make sure that he gets completely destroyed.”

So how big is too big? At what point do the costs of the heaviest vehicles—measured in lives lost—vastly exceed their benefits? To answer this question, The Economist compiled ten years’ worth of crash data from more than a dozen states. Like the data compiled by Mssrs Anderson and Auffhammer, our figures come from reports filed by police officers, who are tasked with recording information about car crashes when called to the scene. Although all states collect such data, we focus on those that collect the most detailed figures and share them with researchers. The resulting dataset, which covers more than a third of America’s population, provides us with a sample that is both big and representative.

In total, our dataset includes millions of crashes across 14 states occurring between 2013 and 2023. Although accident reports vary from state to state, most of the crashes in our database include information about the geographic location of the crash, the number of cars involved, each passenger’s age and gender, whether they were wearing seatbelts and the types of injuries that they suffered. To obtain the curb weight of each vehicle, we collected the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) included in each crash report, and then matched them to vehicle specs data from VinAudit, an auto-data provider. Combining these data yielded roughly 10m crashes. After dropping observations with missing data, we were left with around 7.5m two-vehicle crashes involving more than 15m cars.

What do these data tell us about the relationship between vehicle weight and road safety?

The heaviest 1% of vehicles in our dataset—those weighing around 6,800lb—suffer 4.1 “own-car deaths” per 10,000 crashes, on average, compared with around 6.6 for cars in the middle of our sample weighing 3,500lb, and 15.8 for the lightest 1% of vehicles weighing just 2,300lb. But heavy cars are also far more dangerous to other drivers. The heaviest vehicles in our data were responsible for 37 “partner-car deaths” per 10,000 crashes, on average, compared with 5.7 for median-weight cars and 2.6 for the lightest cars.

To estimate this relationship more precisely, and control for potential sources of bias, we conducted a regression analysis of our sample of 7.5m two-vehicle crashes. We found that getting into a crash with a vehicle that is 1,000lb heavier is associated with a 0.06 percentage-point increase in the probability of suffering a fatality, even after controlling for the curb weight of one’s own car, the age and gender of the driver, the population density of the crash location and whether the passengers were wearing seatbelts. Given that the probability of suffering a fatality in a two-vehicle crash is 0.09%, on average, this suggests that getting hit by an additional 1,000lbs of steel and aluminium—roughly the difference between a Toyota Camry and a Ford Explorer—boosts the likelihood of a fatality by 66%.

As for the weight at which the social costs of driving a heavier vehicle exceed the benefits, the evidence is clear. Vehicles in the top 10% of our sample—those weighing at least 5,000lb—experience roughly 26 deaths per 10,000 crashes, on average, including 5.9 in their own car and 20.2 in partner vehicles. For vehicles in the next-heaviest 10% of our sample—those weighing between 4,500lb and 5,000lb—the equivalent figures are 5.4 and 10.3 deaths per 10,000 crashes. A back-of-the-envelope estimate suggests that if the heaviest tenth of vehicles in America’s fleet were downsized to this lighter weight class, road fatalities in multi-car crashes—which totaled 19,081 in 2023—could be reduced by 12%, or 2,300, without sacrificing the safety of any cars involved.

Given these figures, one might expect carmakers to be slamming the brakes on production of their heaviest SUVs and pickups. In fact, they are pressing on the accelerator. Official figures from the Environmental Protection Agency show that the average new car in America weighs more than 4,400lb (compared with 3,300lb in the European Union and 2,600lb in Japan). In 2023 vehicles weighing more than 5,000lb accounted for a whopping 31% of new cars, up from 22% five years earlier.

United States, new vehicle production

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

United States, new vehicle production

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

United States, new vehicle production

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

It would be easy to blame car buyers for this trend but Mr Anderson says that Americans looking for a new car face a Cold War-style “arms race”. “As you see the vehicle fleet around you getting heavier, then you want to protect yourself rationally by buying a bigger and heavier car.” Such rational individual decisions have led to a suboptimal outcome for society as a whole.

When asked to comment on The Economist’s findings, representatives from the big three car manufacturers pointed to safety features that help drivers avoid crashes, rather than those that make them less deadly. “Vehicle weight doesn’t solely determine crash performance,” Mike Levine, a Ford spokesman, wrote in an email, highlighting crash-avoidance technologies such as automatic emergency braking and front and rear “brake assist”. General Motors pointed out that carmakers have improved the compatibility of their vehicles over the years, citing a voluntary deal struck by manufacturers in 2003, more than twenty years ago. Stellantis (whose biggest shareholder part-owns The Economist’s parent company) declined to comment except to say that the company’s vehicles “meet or exceed all applicable federal safety standards”.

Regulators are ill-equipped to fix the problem. America’s tax system subsidises heavier vehicles by setting more lenient fuel-efficiency standards for light trucks, and allowing bosses who purchase heavy-duty vehicles for business purposes to deduct part of the cost from their taxable income. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), America’s top auto-safety agency, uses a five-star rating system to score crash performance, but only takes account of the safety of the occupants of the vehicle in question, not that of other drivers. “Our rating system reflects a bias towards the occupant,” explains Laura Sandt of the Highway Safety Research Centre at the University of North Carolina, “it is not designed to rate the car in terms of its holistic safety effects.” The NHTSA declined to comment on The Economist’s findings.

There are signs that Americans may be wising up. A survey conducted last year by YouGov, a pollster, found that 41% of Americans think that SUVs and pickup trucks have become too big; 49% said such vehicles are more dangerous for other cars and 50% said they endanger cyclists and pedestrians. Researchers are raising the alarm. Since 1989 the IIHS has regularly published the driver fatality rates of popular car models. In 2023, for the first time, the group also estimated the rate at which cars kill drivers in other vehicles. Policymakers are starting to take notice too. “I’m concerned about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from heavier curb weights,” Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, said in a speech last year.

But the odds that carmakers curb their heaviest, most dangerous vehicles are slim. American car buyers value safety, but mainly for themselves, not society as a whole. And although regulators are tasked with protecting consumers, they rarely do so at the expense of choice, no matter how deadly the consequences. “There may be a certain point where you say, ‘you know what, passenger vehicles shouldn’t be weighing this much,’” says Raul Arbelaez of the IIHS’s Vehicle Research Centre. “But it would, politically, be really hard to gain any momentum on that.” Finally the shift towards electric power is likely to increase their weight further, as battery-powered vehicles tend to be heavier than their internal-combustion equivalents.

“Manufacturers are playing by the book,” says Mark Chung of the National Safety Council, a non-profit. “They’re making a business decision, and it’s a rational decision. Unless they’re forced to think differently, they’re not going to. So I think this is where our federal partners really need to step up.”■

Sources: State governments; VinAudit; The Economist

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Economics

U.S.- Canada Trade Talks Collapse; Carney Says Retaliatory Tariffs Begin September 8

Published

3 days ago

on

September 1, 2026

By

U.S.- Canada Trade Talks Collapse; Carney Says Retaliatory Tariffs Begin September 8

Trade negotiations between the United States and Canada collapsed this week, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announcing that retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods will take effect September 8, 2026. The breakdown follows the Trump administration’s imposition of 50% tariffs on certain Canadian goods, according to reporting from CNBC and the Washington Post.

What Happened

CNBC reported the collapse of talks as part of its ongoing business news coverage on August 22, 2026, noting the story as one of the week’s most significant developments for cross-border trade. The Washington Post’s business desk, in coverage also published August 22-23, quoted Carney characterizing President Trump’s 50% tariffs as “a miscalculation,” and confirmed the September 8 date for Canada’s retaliatory measures.

As of this writing, specific details on which categories of U.S. goods will be subject to Canadian retaliatory tariffs have not been fully reported. This article will be updated with additional specifics as they become available from primary government sources.

Why This Matters for Markets and Consumers

Trade disputes between the U.S. and its largest trading partners tend to have ripple effects across supply chains, consumer prices, and specific industry sectors with cross-border exposure. A Washington Post analysis accompanying the coverage noted that other countries unhappy with existing U.S. trade arrangements are likely watching the U.S.-Canada breakdown closely, suggesting the dispute could have implications beyond the immediate bilateral relationship.

Broader Context: A Volatile Week for Cross-Border and Fiscal News

The trade breakdown arrived during an already turbulent week for U.S. economic news. The same week saw the national debt cross $40 trillion for the first time, a sharp rise in Treasury bond market volatility, and the Treasury Department doubling the size of its debt buyback program. Whether the trade dispute has any direct connection to these fiscal and monetary developments has not been established in current reporting, but the concentration of major economic stories in the same week has drawn attention from market commentators tracking overall macroeconomic risk.

How This Fits the Broader Trade Policy Pattern

The U.S.-Canada breakdown is not occurring in isolation. Trade policy has been an active area of U.S. economic policymaking throughout 2026, with tariff actions and negotiations affecting multiple trading partners over the course of the year. Canada has historically been among the United States’ largest trading partners by total trade volume, meaning a prolonged dispute carries more direct economic exposure for both economies than a similar breakdown with a smaller trading partner would.

Industries with integrated North American supply chains — including automotive manufacturing, agriculture, and energy — have historically been among the most exposed to U.S.-Canada trade friction, given the degree to which components and raw materials cross the border multiple times during production. Businesses in these sectors should treat the September 8 deadline as a planning point regardless of whether it ultimately takes effect as announced.

What We Don’t Yet Know

Several material details remain unconfirmed or unreported as of this writing:

– The specific list of U.S. product categories subject to Canadian retaliatory tariffs
– Whether any further negotiations are scheduled between the September 8 deadline and the present
– Potential exemptions for critical supply chains, such as energy or auto parts, which have historically received special treatment in prior U.S.-Canada trade disputes

What to Watch Next

Businesses with cross-border exposure to Canadian suppliers or customers should monitor official statements from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and Canada’s Department of Global Affairs for detailed tariff schedules ahead of the September 8 implementation date. Given the fluid nature of trade negotiations, a resumption of talks or a modified agreement before that date remains possible and would supersede current retaliatory tariff plans.

Continue Reading

Economics

U.S. National Debt Surpasses $40 Trillion for the First Time: What It Means for the Economy

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 23, 2026

By

US Debt is now 40 trillions

The U.S. gross national debt crossed $40 trillion for the first time this week, according to Treasury Department data reported by NPR on August 20, 2026. The milestone caps a period of rapid fiscal expansion: the debt has doubled since 2017, and the federal government now spends more than $1 trillion a year just servicing interest on what it owes.

Why the Debt Load Is Accelerating

The debt has not grown at a steady pace. Instead, a combination of pandemic-era spending, tax policy changes, and elevated interest rates has compounded the federal government’s borrowing costs. As older Treasury bonds issued at lower rates mature, they are being refinanced at today’s higher prevailing rates, which pushes up the government’s annual interest bill even without any new borrowing.

That interest bill is no longer a minor line item. At more than $1 trillion annually, debt servicing now competes directly with discretionary spending on defense, infrastructure, and social programs. Economists watching the trend note that this dynamic can become self-reinforcing: higher interest costs widen the deficit, which requires more borrowing, which in turn raises future interest costs.

Bond Market Reaction

The debt milestone arrived during a volatile week for Treasury bonds. Bond prices fell even as equity markets touched record highs, a divergence that market analysts describe as bond investors signaling concern about the sustainability of federal borrowing, even as stock investors remain focused on corporate earnings and AI-driven growth.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent responded to the bond market pressure by expanding the Treasury’s debt buyback program, telling CNBC the size of buyback operations had been doubled to at least $4 billion per operation, with room to increase further. Buybacks are intended to support demand for existing Treasury securities and help stabilize yields during periods of market stress.

What Rising Debt Means for Ordinary Households

For everyday consumers, the national debt level itself is abstract, but its downstream effects are not. Elevated Treasury yields tend to push up borrowing costs across the economy, including mortgage rates, auto loans, and business credit. The same week the $40 trillion milestone was confirmed, average 30-year mortgage rates moved sharply, illustrating how bond market volatility connects directly to household borrowing costs.

Rising federal interest costs also narrow the government’s fiscal flexibility. As a larger share of the federal budget goes toward servicing debt rather than funding programs, policymakers face growing pressure to either cut spending, raise revenue, or both — choices that carry direct economic consequences for households and businesses alike.

What to Watch Next

The debt trajectory is expected to remain a central topic at the Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, scheduled for August 27–29, 2026 — the first such gathering under new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, who was confirmed by the Senate in a 54-45 vote in May 2026. While the symposium’s stated theme is financial innovation and payments policy, fiscal sustainability and its interaction with monetary policy are likely to feature in sideline discussions given the scale of the debt milestone.

Investors and households should watch upcoming Treasury auction results and any further changes to the buyback program as early indicators of how markets are digesting the government’s borrowing needs. A weak auction — one that requires higher yields to attract sufficient buyers — would be a signal that investor appetite for U.S. debt is softening further.

The $40 trillion figure is a threshold, not a crisis in itself. But combined with a bond market already showing signs of strain, it adds urgency to a fiscal conversation that has largely been deferred by successive Congresses and administrations.

Continue Reading

Economics

Economic Profile of the United States of America (2026–2030 Horizon)

Published

2 weeks ago

on

August 22, 2026

By

Economic Profile of the United States of America (2026–2030 Horizon)

Executive Summary & Core Macro Outlook

The United States enters the 2026–2030 macroeconomic window as the unquestioned heavyweight of nominal economic output, retaining its status as the primary engine of global financial liquidity, private enterprise innovation, and high-margin technological deployment. According to multi-year projections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook and complementary datasets from the World Bank, the US nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to reach $32.38 trillion by 2026, accounting for approximately 25% of global nominal output and roughly 14.5% of world GDP measured at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).

Unlike many of its advanced-economy peers across Western Europe and East Asia—which are grappling with acute demographic contraction and structural energy shocks—the United States demonstrates remarkable macroeconomic resilience. The IMF projects a real GDP Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.1% to 2.3% through 2030. This expansion is sustained by three structural anchors: unmatched capital depth driving massive private-sector investment in Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure, complete energy independence as a net exporter of hydrocarbons and liquefied natural gas (LNG), and high labor productivity gains that cushion the economy against rising debt-servicing costs.

Macroeconomic Data Matrix (2026–2030 Projections)

Economic MetricIMF / World Bank Baseline (2026–2030)Global Benchmark & Context
Nominal GDP (2026 Projection)~$32.38 TrillionRank #1 Globally
GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)~$32.40 TrillionRank #2 Globally (Behind China’s ~$38.5T PPP)
Projected Real GDP CAGR (2026–2030)2.1% – 2.3%Top decile among G7 advanced economies
Gross Public Debt (% of GDP)~122.5% – 128.0%Structural fiscal deficit trajectory
Core Inflation Rate (PCE Target)Stabilizing at 2.0% – 2.2%Federal Reserve inflation target alignment
Current Account Balance (% of GDP)-2.8% to -3.2%Persistent capital import & reserve currency demand

Deep Structural Growth Drivers

1. The AI Infrastructure Hyper-Cycle & TFP Expansion

The defining growth catalyst for the US economy over the 2026–2030 horizon is the unprecedented scale of private capital expenditure (Capex) poured into artificial intelligence infrastructure, enterprise software integration, and advanced computing hardware.

Major technology mega-caps and private equity funds are directing hundreds of billions of dollars annually into hyper-scale data centers, domestic semiconductor fabrication, high-voltage electrical grid upgrades, and AI-driven workflow platforms. According to World Bank economic research, technological adoption across American service and manufacturing sectors is driving a notable uptick in Total Factor Productivity (TFP). This productivity surge allows US companies to expand profit margins and output even in an environment characterized by higher structural real interest rates and tight skilled-labor markets.

2. Deep Capital Markets and Private Sector Liquidity

The structural backbone of US economic outperformance remains its financial system. US capital markets represent over 40% of global equity market capitalization and a vast majority of global venture capital and private credit assets.

This liquidity creates an efficient mechanism for capital allocation: high-potential emerging industries (such as quantum computing, synthetic biology, and advanced defense technology) receive early-stage funding at a scale that no other national market can match. When global monetary conditions tighten, global capital flees toward safety and yield, reinforcing US capital depth and lowering the relative cost of equity capital for American corporations.

3. Net Energy Independence & Industrial Cost Advantages

Unlike industrial hubs in Germany, Japan, or South Korea—which remain highly vulnerable to volatile sea-lane logistics and imported fuel price spikes—the United States operates as a major net exporter of petroleum, natural gas, and refined chemical products.

Access to abundant, cheap domestic natural gas provides US heavy industry, advanced manufacturing, and electricity-hungry data centers with a persistent structural cost advantage. Furthermore, federal policy frameworks (including the CHIPS and Science Act and clean energy tax provisions) continue to catalyze domestic private manufacturing investment, re-shoring high-value supply chains from East Asia back to the American Sunbelt and Midwest.

Macroeconomic Vulnerabilities & Downside Risks

1. Structural Sovereign Debt Trajectory

The most significant medium-term threat to US macroeconomic stability is the path of federal public debt. With gross national debt exceeding 120% of GDP and annual federal deficits running between 5% and 7% of GDP, the US fiscal baseline faces increasing structural pressure.

As older legacy low-yield Treasury bonds mature, they are refinanced at higher prevailing interest rates. According to IMF fiscal monitor assessments, federal net interest payments are absorbing an expanding share of total fiscal revenue, crowding out discretionary spending and narrowing the government’s capacity to deploy counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus during future downturns.

2. Commercial Real Estate (CRE) & Banking Sector Realignment

The structural transformation toward hybrid work models has permanently altered office space utilization across major US metropolitan areas. Regional and community banks, which hold a disproportionate share of commercial real estate debt, face ongoing balance-sheet pressure as legacy office loans mature and require refinancing at lower property valuations and higher interest rates. While systemic money-center banks remain well-capitalized, localized credit tightening from regional lenders presents a headwind for small-and-medium enterprise (SME) borrowing.

High-Outperformance Sector Matrix (2026–2030)
  1. Enterprise AI, Cloud Compute, & Cybersecurity: Companies building enterprise-grade software, AI agents, cloud architectures, and specialized hardware protection layers.
  2. Next-Generation Energy & Grid Modernization: Power generation utilities, high-voltage electrical equipment makers, small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) developers, and energy storage systems catering to exponential data center energy demands.
  3. Advanced Defense Technology & Aerospace: Autonomous systems, satellite networks, hypersonic defense, and advanced materials supplying both domestic security needs and global allied demand.

Strategic Summary for Global Investors & Executives

The United States through 2030 remains the ultimate high-volume, high-yield destination for institutional capital. While fiscal debt risks require long-term monitoring, the immediate 5-year outlook is defined by strong technology-driven productivity, resilient private consumption, and unmatched market liquidity. For global corporations and institutional allocators, exposure to the US economy remains an indispensable pillar of long-term growth strategy.

Top 65 Largest Economies in the World for 2027

Top 10 Largest Economies by 2030: IMF & World Bank GDP Projections for Global Powerhouses

Continue Reading

Trending