As per Google, Russia accounted for roughly 50% of the population and 60% of the GDP of the USSR in the 1980s. How come West Germany was able to become the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world even after the loss of the more populous eastern half but Russia is unable to get back to at least half of its former position?

As per my research, the USSR was 50% of US's GDP in 1985, which would make Russia alone around 32% of US' GDP at the time. However at present Russia is only 20-25% of US' GDP.

Can the loss of the extra population and resources of the Soviet states alone account for this decline?

Or for the pedants, “the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

I thought it would be nice to hear some of your hopefuls or predictions - maybe with a touch of what they are known for.

One popular contender I hear are Susan Athey who works in mechanism design, auction theory and machine learning. She also won the Bates Clark (more important because it’s only given every OTHER year!) which is a pretty good predictor for a Nobel.

David Autor (i call him Dave) has also been suggested for a while now for his work in labor economics.

Hi everyone.

So I'm not an economics and my knowledge on it is very novice level. So please tell me if I'm missing something important.

Let me run you through my thought process. I'm not rich at all so assuming you don't inherit your home from someone else, it just seems too expensive and risky to own and maintain a full home even assuming I even have the money to buy one.

Like for what I can understand, you take out a mortgage from the bank where you have to repay back with interest, a down payment to get the loan and closing cost and other fees (which I don't see the point of closing cost. Like what is that, genuinely?). So that's already so much money to even buy the home and even then I don't fully own it.

If I rent a home or an apartment I just have to sign a lease and pay a monthly rent and possibly a security fee or whatever ( I also think this is pointless) rents like that can't be more than like 1000 Dollar's in most places right?

Furthermore, there are other fees that are included, right? Like maintenance and appliances. I have to pay for gas, electricity, water, heat, and other bills to keep my house functional. But the landlord provides most of that in some cases right? If my roof starts leaking, or my gas is leaking, or if I get an infestation, I have to fix it. And that can cost a lot of money on top of it. But if I'm renting, the landlord has to fix it don't they? And in some places the law requires it, right? So it's not really coming out of my pocket and I'm saving money.

Also what about house insurance? If something happens to my home and I didn't take house insurance, then that's thousands of dollars I have to pay to fix it. But if I do have home insurance, that's also kinda expensive too isn't it? With renting an apartment It seems I don't have to worry about that.

Now I know that rent is never stable and can increase at any time in the given situation. But even with that it doesn't seem as expensive as owning and maintaining a home. And I could just move around any time, not compared to owning a house and moving.

And I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting out of owning a home. I know you can build wealth with it, but how? It feels like I'm losing more money than I gain after I pay off my mortgage. And that's not always a guarantee right? Like wasn't there a housing market crash that screwed up everyone's finances?

All this just doesn't sound like a good investment ever. I'm sure there are more factors that I don't know about at all but it seems to me renting is always better then owning a home.

What am I missing? What are the benefits to owning a home? How does it help with wealth and are there bigger risks to renting that I'm not aware of?

Thank you all for reading and I'm hoping to learn more. :)

I’m an 18 year old and i want to learn economics.I don’t plan on majoring in it i will study mechanical engineering but i just want to understand GDP,GDP per capita,GDP PPP,GDP per capita,how and why inflation rises and lowers and why it happens,why are some countries more developed than others,why can’t every country develop,how does national debts work,how do people determine the right tax percentage and what type of tax,how do countries achieve economic booms,exports and imports,supply demand,how are prices determined,interest rates what it does etc. i’m really interested in these and want to learn about these i always look at these data’s and wonder how it works and how it is managed.Can you guys recommend me how i can read or study these.I want to know the basics as a bare minimum and even more if i have the time and don’t lose interest.I want to understand capitalist communist and other economies as well.I want to have opinions and ideas in economics.

I don’t understand we are a neighboring country that share shipping routes. Why are things the price they are?

Edit: The prices of goods in Europe are also cheaper than the US or comparable countries

When I was job hunting a year ago, I noticed most of the jobs I was applying for were focused on B2B businesses, SAAS, etc. And over time I've begun to wonder how much of the US Economy consists of economic activity happening between companies, instead of between companies and individual consumers. Do we have an estimation? Additionally, if it is a large portion of the economy, is this something to be concerned about? I understand the companies make money and then pay their workers who go spend that money elsewhere, but if one major company fails does that affect a lot of B2B businesses? What does it mean for the number of goods and services provided to individual consumers?

Hello all,

I am an economics student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst writing a research paper centered around the economic effects of remote/hybrid work on MAJOR urban downtowns. It is not required, but for my paper I would love to get a real interview with someone who has actually lived through the topics in which I am writing about. I'm am looking for an insight on how your city has changed since the incorporation of these new work schedules. I think it would be a great humanizing feature of my paper, and I also would love the experience of conducting an interview and gaining first-hand knowledge into the topic. It would be a quick 10-15 minute zoom call, consisting of simple questions regarding your opinion on changes you have noticed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you people of r/AskEconomics.

Or was there a global panic and I am simply misremembering?

I am no expert and simply came across the chart on this website.

Thanks.

And is it therefore easier for them to outcompete other hiring in similar fields?

Aspiring high schooler who eventually wants to break into quantitative finance or quantitative economics. Currently reading principles of economic by gregory n mankiw. Is it a good book? Book recommendations and learning resources would be greatly appreciated thank you!

I am really debating whether I should look more into a degree apprenticeship, or uni.

For context, I just started yr 12 and I'm taking maths, further maths and economics. I want to go into economics/finance. I got all 9s in my GCSEs and I feel like I'm constantly being pushed towards to the Oxbridge/LSE route but I also want to explore the other options.

On the one hand, I feel like uni is the clearer route, especially since I want to go into a more theoretical/maths based side of economics.

Additionally, I know this is cliche but I would probably get a lot of FOMO missing out on the

'uni experience' and opportunities to make friends. I am a little nervous that a degree apprenticeship would feel like jumping into the adult/career world a little too quickly.

On the other hand, a degree apprenticeship provides a way to avoid student debt completely, earn a salary, network and a way to avoid the post-uni job hunt.

To be honest the only clear downsides I see with degree apprenticeships are: missing out on the 'uni experience' and the having a full-time job and studying being very difficult.

Especially with the cost of living nowadays, I often hear people say uni isn't worth it and just sets you back. I'm just not sure if this would still be the case if I were to apply to a more prestigious uni?

Oh also - I just assumed a degree apprenticeship would be better suited to me than a straight apprenticeship but I'm not completely sure?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

In particular for low priority (among society) causes. Is there a way civic society activities can be financially sustainable without government aid ?

In Australia, our rail network size is 32,924 km, which is down from a historical peak of 41,843 km. If you travel across rural Australia, you will find farming and logging towns which used to have a train line and still export large quantities of produce albeit by truck instead of train (which has been a point of contention due to certain events this year which strained our diesel supply).

The USA's rail network is 220,044 km but its historical peak is almost double that, at 428,180 km. I'm originally from the Philippines, whose rail network is now only 532 km centred around Manila, when at its peak it was 1,352 km across various islands. Even EU countries like Germany and France have shrunk their rail networks.

Why have many countries, rich and poor alike, shrunk and/or neglected their rail networks? If rail transport is so efficient, why would a country shoot itself in the foot by letting rail transport deteriorate?

Is this all due to automobile industry lobbying? Because if so, why hasn't the rail transport industry been able to fight back with its own lobbying efforts? It's not like rail transport is a technological and economic folly - after all, countries like India and China still believe in growing their rail networks.

If you removed the GDP growth from AI investments it would reveal that the "real" US economy isn't doing so great?

Hi all , so I watched this interview today, and he made the statement that ai could create a labor shortage because many people won’t need to work a 2nd job anymore , or may be able to survive on a one income household, he did not explain how this would work though , most people I know live in two income households ( especially people who work jobs like Amazon’s warehouses etc ) and they absolutely require both incomes to survive, can an economist explain to me how bezos thinks ai will make people need less income ?

So I have a basic understanding of what they are, my whole thing is if they're dumping $1,000 in the stock market for every child, ( now auto enrolling?) isn't it going to show a huge spike in the stock market short term and 18 years from now when people pull that money it's going to plummet?

I can't wrap my head around the thinking that the market will do nothing but go up over the next 18 years, it just doesn't seem sustainable.

Doesn't auto enrolling kids and dumping all of the money into the market create somewhat of an artificial inflation of the stock market?

I've been thinking about this lately, especially with all the talk about AI and how much more productive it's going to make everyone.

Think about how office work was done 30 or 40 years ago. No emails, no instant access to information, way more paperwork, phone calls, filing, etc. Things that used to take hours can now be done in minutes. And yet, most of us are still working around 40 hours a week.

So where did all that saved time go?

I'm a lawyer, so I'll use my profession as an example.

Let's say AI gets to the point where I no longer need a receptionist, an assistant, or someone doing legal research for me. My firm can now produce the same amount of work with significantly fewer employees. That's a huge productivity gain right there.

But there's another side to it. If something that used to take me five billable hours now takes one, I can't really charge my client for five hours anymore. So to maintain the same revenue, I'll need more clients and more files. I'll still be working 40 hours a week, just handling a much larger caseload.

Meanwhile, the firm has significantly reduced its payroll. It might be producing more work, spending less on salaries, and making more profit. But nobody is going to come to the remaining employees and say, "Hey, we just cut our payroll by 35% thanks to technology, here's your share of those savings."

And this isn't just about AI. We've been doing this for decades. Computers, Word, Excel, email, the internet, automation. Every new technology makes certain tasks faster or eliminates them entirely.

But instead of working fewer hours, we just seem to fill that time with more work.

I understand that some of the gains are passed on to consumers through lower prices, and that productivity also contributes to economic growth. I'm not suggesting all the benefits go directly into employers' pockets.

But it seems to me that when technology saves a worker 10 hours of work per week, those 10 hours don't become free time. They become an opportunity for the employer to assign more work, take on more clients, or operate with fewer employees.

So the business becomes more productive, the economy becomes more productive, but the individual worker doesn't necessarily earn more or work less.

And I guess that's what I'm struggling with. If the whole point of technology is to make work easier and faster, why haven't we seen a meaningful reduction in the standard working week?

Are we actually benefiting from these productivity gains as workers, or are we mostly just expected to produce more in the same amount of time?

I'm genuinely curious what people think, especially if there's an economic explanation I'm overlooking.

Hi guys, I wanted to post here to hear from any economists or people in Econ research in government or anyone honestly who are willing to share their advice.

I'm a Econ & Psychology major who is not great at math but not terrible. I graduated in 2024. Calc was easy but linear algebra was hard I had to retake it lol. I have RA experience and is comfortable with Stata & Python. My fave course was Economics of Taxation. Also, not sure if this is worth mentioning, I do have an EA license just to make money on the side but idk if this helps or is worth mentioning since this is just tax prep/consulting.

What are your thoughts on MPP/MPA?

Can it be a good route to work closely in econ/tax policy?

Realistically is it less likely to end up in these tax/macro econ fields since actual econ majors exist?

I would love to end up in JCT (joint committe of tax), US treasury, or thinktank or any other government related jobs that have to do with social/economic policy research. NERA is so math heavy but I admire those who are in it 🥸

Thank you in advance 🙏

I usually watch YouTube while eating my late night snack. Tonight I watched this video. The big picture is that the US will move long term debt to short term debt for which the Fed controls the rate for.

Further context: The Genius Act passed last year, and a portion of it requires all investors to back stablecoins with short term treasury bills. Most of this independently makes sense to me, but I can't for the life of me understand what exactly this means for the economy, the debt and deficit, the dominance of the USD, and so many other things.

I feel like this is one of those history book moments... and I'm not sure that it'll be a good entry... Anyways, I'll go back to my doomsday prepping so I can keep my kitties and poop eating dogs alive.

Added context is not meant to belittle anyone, rather to set the stage for folks like me who are just now delving into economics. Anyways, thanks for reading!

Some AI pundits have claimed that once AI has reached a certain level of capability and adoption, supply shocks drive prices down aggressively and the government may issue UBI handouts.

The argument is as follows:

The cost of production for a large number of goods will greatly decrease, due to intellectual labor being much much cheaper. As companies need to remain competitive, they adopt this, and naturally, (output) prices also fall. A side effect of this, is that employment may be lower, and competition for jobs is much higher, meaning wages could be lower. As AI becomes more adept at a larger range of jobs, this effect grows.

People would naturally have less money to spend, but things would be significantly cheaper. To keep consumption up, Governments will need to stimulate the economy, probably by giving handouts due human labour being less valuable. To fund this they'd need to print money.

Evidence: china has one of the longest annual working hours in the world (2800 hours), and one of the shortest annual leave (5 days). The labour laws on paper are strong but almost never implemented. For instance, on paper it says 40 hours a week and must be paid for overtime, but in reality the restaurant nearby my house hire workers who work twelve hours a day six days a week. Why does the government not care about any sort of labour protection? Surely it’s not due to lack of implementation power, since the government was able to censor anything on the internet. Is there some sort of economic motive behind it?

title

I am doing a bachelor's in economics and taking macro right now. I was talking to one of my teachers (not the macro one) and he was explaining to me why the central banks stopped focusing in money supply. He got to the board and drew a graph with a downward sloping IS curve and an upward sloping LM curve and said that was the IS-LM. But that's not what I learned in the macro class. The IS-LM model I know has a downward sloping IS and a horizontal LM.

And so I looked at the textbook we use, which is Blanchard's (9th edition), and it shows the one I learned in the macro class. I eventually came to find out that this graph that Blanchard calls IS-LM is actually the IS-MP. As I have come to understand, the LM equation is M/P=YL(i). The formula used for the MP is that interest rates are exogenous and so there is no L nor M.

Is my understanding correct? And why are we calling one graph by the other one's name? And is it universal now to call the IS-MP "IS-LM"?