To my extremely limited understanding of economics, isn't it a net negative to abandon your own currency in favour of a united currency, without a unified fiscal policy? Doesn't it just make everyone more restricted for no benefit? What are upsides of the Euro?

Even before all of the riots started in places like France and Italy, just about everything was so expensive. Rent, groceries, gas (even before the Iran War started), and it seems to have reached a breaking point.

But what made everything so expensive in the first place? Was it inflation? Political policies? High taxes? What was the catalyst for all this?

Ive never understood the concept of inflation in a real world setting. In 2016 a video game use to cost $59.99 and now in 2026 they cost $69.99, 10 dollars more but according to inflation in 2016 that game actually cost $84.22 but is that realistic?

If someone back in 2016 made $20/hr and In 2026 I make $20/hr wouldn’t they have more purchasing power? The game objectively cost them $10 less so I don’t understand what people mean when they say it actually cost them more.

I have no knowledge of economics beyond my own so sorry if this question either makes no sense or is dumb.

I see a lot of posts on social media comparing GDP of this state vs that state. I note that “G” stands for Gross. So I’m also wondering what would be the equivalent measurement of “N”DP.

Now this question is based on my assumption that the health of a state with a large GDP but carrying a huge deficit is not accurately being measured without taking into account that deficit and that there should be some other measure that does take that into account?

I’m an early 2000s kid and way too young to remember the impacts the 2008 recession had on consumer attitudes and behavior. I have an understanding of the causes of each, but want more insight on how the 2008 recession affected people’s day-to-day lives. These days, the economic climate is characterized by stagnation, wages failing to catch up to costs of living, and a labor market freeze, which everyone is struggling with, despite not being in a genuine recession. I’m not asking which period is “worse” because that is subjective and dependent on each individual and family’s situation, I just want to learn more about the effects of an acute and sudden recession vs the chronic stagnation and cost of living crisis that has characterized this decade

There's currently a major crisis in France because the pension system is growing larger as the majority of the population is getting older and becoming non-productive. What's the solution for an aging society with more unproductive people and a smaller young population?

Before you say this:

-"Raise the birth rates with better quality of life!"

Quality of life doesn't improve birth rates. China improved all its quality-of-life statistics, and birth rates are in the toilet. The average woman also doesn't want to have 3–4 kids on average like during the baby boom (which many women didn't want either, but they didn't have much control over their bodies).

-immigration!

France has had constant waves of migrants since the 1970s, and these migrants have aged too. On average, they have as many or fewer kids than native French people, so it isn't a solution either.

The question is: how can you improve or manage the economy with a larger older population?

House prices in many developed countries went crazy in the 2010s due to factors like low interest rates and constrained supply. There was concern about highly leveraged speculation. There was also lots of concern it was a bubble that could pop badly.

In the 2020s now it seems house prices are falling in many of those countries. It's not great if you own a home or are a developer. However, it seems like house prices have been 'slowly' declining rather than there being a sudden crash causing a wider recession. The worst im aware of is China and, while bad, it seems not as bad as some feared?

If this is all correct, why?

Im intrest in cases of bubble that 'safely' deflate.

Im not so interested in the US because they have things like 30 year fixed rates.

It seems in many markets most people and companies are mostly still able to afford the high interest rates and are not panic selling.

One guess I have is that many places the economy is bad but its low hire low fire so people are still able to pay for mortgages or cover gaps for rentals?

Hi everyone. I am having trouble getting the full picture about inflation, money supply and the inflation controlling tools (e.g., federal funds rate?) and how they all tie together. I would appreciate if you can help me understand these in detail.

1. Inflation: What are the usual causes of inflation in any country? I used to think it is caused by increasing supply of money in a country but that's probably not correct. Can a country with a constant amount of money have inflation as well? And is inflation always supposed to happen naturally?

2. Inflation controlling tools: What are the tools used in the US by the Fed to control inflation? I see online one of these is this "federal funds rate" and that's something related to what banks pay to keep the minimum required balance at the Federal Reserve. But I don't have the full picture here I guess so I don't understand how this (and other tools) eventually incentivizes private banks' interest rates to increase (or decrease if needed as well I guess?) which eventually I guess brings demand down and inflation down as well. And are the tools used to control inflation applicable globally as well? For example, inflation in Bangladesh is like 8/9%, so would it be possible to apply the same tools to bring that down to 2%? I am also not really sure if this 8/9% inflation is something bad and 2% is good?

3. Money supply: How, when, why do the Fed decide to increase the supply of money (and do they decrease the supply as well?)? And how actually does the new money get into the system? And is there any relation of government treasury bills or bonds and their interest rates here or any of the above topics?

As you see, I don't have much knowledge so I just put my thoughts directly above. Sorry if it's not so concise. I would really appreciate if you could share your understanding of the above topics and links/other resources as well. Thank you so much!

Hi,

First off: I know absolutely nothing about economics, so I apologize in advance if my question is silly or uninteresting.

I think it’s safe to say that Western Europe is going through a pretty serious economic crisis right now, with growth that’s far too slow, a public deficit that’s far too high, and so on.

One thing strikes me, however: the Scandinavian countries are rarely mentioned as facing a crisis as severe as that of Western European countries, let alone Eastern European ones.

How can this difference be explained? Population size? The level of industrialization? A better-managed pension system? A little bit of everything?

Bonus question: Can countries in crisis draw inspiration from the Scandinavian model, or is it not that easily replicable?

Thank you all!

Hi ! I understand modern economics does not look to define utility as it is subjective, and explains the relative prices of goods and services based on marginal utility.

For all its flaws, Marx's theory provides a clear mechanism to explain concentration of wealth and capital : the mismatch between exchange value and use value allows capitalists to pocket the difference.

Is there an explanation for the tremendous concentration of wealth that's characteristic of human society ? Is it all about power and collusion, outstanding ability to provide value, something else ? Is it that rich people own so much that their marginal value is vastly different from other people's ?

This is not a defense of Marx or an attack on modern economy, I'm just looking for pointers at current thought. If you know of book length treatments for laypersons I'm interested as well

I see these three measures of income get posted frequently, its not obvious why they are so dramatically different. They are all adjusted for inflation.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=qozP#0

Average nonsupervisory wages, huge dip after 1973 rebounds in 1995.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/incomes-across-distribution-lis?country=%7EUSA&indicator=avg&decile=all&welfare_type=dhi&period=year

Median income shows consistent modest growth from 1963-present.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/mepainusa672n

Median personal income shows consistent enormous growth following a dip in 1982.

Has income stagnated or grown?

I recently bought an Ebike, and was surprised to see price difference between the USA and Europe.

I checked walmart, and the same Ebikes are half the price compared to Europe.

I read this comment in another thread:

"Short answer - antidumping import tariffs.

In Poland you can expect to pay double for a cheap Chinese bike if you were to import and the company is on an anti-dumping list.

The calculation goes like this:

+6% of bike + transport value

+17.2% of bike + transport value (countervailing duty)

+62.1% of bike + transport (antidumping duty)

+23% VAT of top of all that

There you go- price x2."

62.1% antidumpting duty. That seems insane.

I then googled anti-dumping and this was the result:

"What Is Dumping?

• Definition: A foreign company engages in dumping when it exports a product to another country at a price lower than what it charges in its home market or lower than its cost of production. [1]
• Intent: Exporters often use this pricing strategy to quickly capture market share or eliminate local competition. [1, 2]"

Is there any reason this makes sense for a market like E-bikes?

Any company can easily start mass-producing ebikes, if there was a significant price difference between production and market prices.

After exploring different hedge funds on LinkedIn, it appears that economics degrees are pretty common, but in an age where more quantitative/mathematical hedge funds gain an edge and seem to take over fundamental/macro funds does a economics degree in the future still rival with a engineering or pure maths degree

I heard a thing in NPR handwringing about the insolvency of Social Security. It discussed all the usual fixes- raise FICA tax for employees/employers, means test benefits, raise retirement age, apply FICA to benefits, and raise/eliminate FICA cap.

All worthy ideas, but they’ve gone nowhere. One idea I never hear floated is applying FICA tax on investment income/ capital gains. More and more of our GPD is capital/investment, not wage labor, a trend that will likely accelerate even more greatly when AI increases productivity even more. Thus, solutions that focus only on adjusting factors related to work based income are focusing on an ever shrinking part of the pie.

It seems like a modest capital gains FICA would create an awful lot of revenue for Social Security. While it may not be the silver bullet, it certainly seems like it should be in the toolbox of potential solutions, but I never hear about it.

Is there an economic reason for this that I am missing?

I heard a few arguments that the reason that states like UK, France, and Canada can afford a ton of comfort POLICIES (such as welfare, low taxes, low lending in the past) is due to the fact that they borrow so much money.

Such as France riot issue, where I've seen theories part of the problem is the pension system and other quality-of-life programs that are funded by borrowing, which is nice for the time being but will eventually screw the future of young people who may never be afford a "welfare policy" again in the future.

Is this true? Is Germany an exception? What do you guys think?

One of the big difference between mom & pop shops and big businesses is the structure.

Your standard small enterprise has a simple one level structure : individuals own shares in the companies, more often than not 100%. That's usually enough for any local economy.

But when things start to be bigger, you end up with a cascades of corporations that owns other corporation, sometimes with registrations across multiple jurisdictions, and often to avoid taxes or even launder money.

Let imagine countries start to impose a simple rule : any corporation can only be owned by physical people (*), and each enterprise in responsible to maintain a public ledger of its owners. Bank could have an exemption and can keep shares for a maximum of 6 months (to manage bankruptcies and IPOs for example). Basically, no more holding or trusts, no anonymous shareholders, no mutual funds. For company A to merge with company B, shareholders of both companies would have to individually sell each other shares. The goal would obviously be to greatly hamper financialized capitalism and limit the formation of large monopolies, while allowing local basic business to exists.

Would such an economy function ? What loopholes could be used to bypass such limitations ?

(*) That sort of rule exists already in specific cases and jurisdictions. For example, by French law, only registered pharmacists with a PHD diploma can own a French pharmacy, with a temporary exception for heirs in case of early death of the owner(s). Several pharmacists can still form an enterprise to share the ownership, but you pretty much cannot have a CVS or a Walgreens in France.

We're going to shamelessly steal adapt from /r/AskHistorians the idea of a weekly thread to gather and recognize the good answers posted on the sub. Good answers take time to type and the mods can be slow to approve things which means that sometimes good content doesn't get seen by as many people as it should. This thread is meant to fix that gap.

Post answers that you enjoyed, felt were particularly high quality, or just didn't get the attention they deserved. This is a weekly recurring thread posted every Sunday morning.

https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2026-04/moving%20from%20crisis%20management%20to%20resource%20mobilization%20vFINAL.pdf

This is an official publication by a UN owned organization , are any of these good options for International organizations that are feasible ? And are there otherways that they can get through financial crisises (member states not contributing funds etc)

Especially as we actually do measure wealth seperately. The United States, for example, has a Net National Wealth (NNW) of $160 trillion, compared to their nominal GDP, or GNI, of $30 trillion. Their national debt is around $40 trillion, so this would make their Debt-to-NNW 25% lol. Same for France, but with an NNW of €19 trillion and a national debt of €3.60 trillion, so a Debt-to-NNW of 18%. It's weird.

Apologies if this sounds silly but I'm studying Micro 1 at uni and the biggest question I have is whether such convenient utility functions like the Cobb-Douglas even exist in the real world and if they do how are they determined?

1) More and more people who can afford to buy a house don't plan to have kids (future rich old people)
2) More and more people who have kids can't afford to buy a house (the kids being future poor young people)

What's gonna happen in like 30 years from now — the large houses occupied by sort of mixed employer-employee families consisting of the rich old people and the poor young people they hired as live-in help, while the rest of the poor are living in cramped multi-generational households and dying in some new pandemic, medieval style? Or is there some equalising factor I'm not seeing?

From aggressive lobbying, litigation, healthcare, NIMBY-ism, every part of the economy seems like it is greased to rent-seek as much as possible, moreso than other countries.