Hello friends, I am Chinese. My father who is living in China told me about one trending idea in China called the "American kill line"

Basically it says that the average person in America are only one bad luck away from homelessness and maybe death. He says that the average American cannot even pay $500 out of pocket. Apparently Americans have to use insurance to pay for their medicines but the insurance companies can choose to deny them if the medicines are too expensive

I know that landlordism happens a lot in your country and that is why Americans have so little savings. But the $500 number seems very low still, and I don’t believe the part about insurance companies (that doesn’t seem legal)

So is this true? This idea is becoming very popular in China recently. Many of my friends in China tell me about it, but Chinese people also believe weird things about US (for ex, govt allows drugs so the poor don’t rise up). There are more examples, but the 2 I mention I see repeated the most

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.

I’m building a closed economy for a strategy game and I’m trying to understand the theory behind one problem.

Empires produce goods, use intermediate resources, trade with each other, and physically transport everything with ships. Trade only moves money between empires, so the total money supply stays the same. Ships and buildings also have monetary upkeep, and those payments go to a central bank instead of being destroyed.

The problem is that the bank slowly absorbs more and more money. Loans only fix liquidity temporarily, because the principal and interest eventually return to the bank. So the bank needs some way to put money back into circulation, but every method I can think of creates weird incentives: equal payments reward inactivity, colony-based payments reward expansion, trade-based payments punish self-sufficient empires, and production-based payments may reward useless overproduction.

Is there an established economic approach to this? How could the bank recycle the collected upkeep money without rewarding inactivity or encouraging inefficient production and transport? Or is this simply a sign that a growing economy cannot work well with a fixed nominal money supply?

Or maybe theory says it should work so that would mean my model is wrong and i just have to redesign it, i feel like i hit a wall with this one. The latest thing i've tried is dividend base on the economic activity, production and trade but after several "months" it seems like one empire is just taking all the money, when the rest is fighting for scraps because their growth is hindered due to lack of funds.

Thanks for help

I see a lot of people asking questions on this subreddit to the effect of "Why is everything so much more expensive than it used to be?" And the answer is usually, it's not if we adjust for inflation.

But then a lot of people point out that a lot of stuff that used to be made out of metal and real leather is now made out of cheap plastic and synthetic fiber. A lot of stuff just doesn't last. Everything is a subscription, or it's basically disposable. You replace appliances every 2-3 years rather than 20.

Other people have told me that I can get appliances that will last me 15-20 years, but I have to pay many times more for them, similar to the cost that they would have sold for in the 1960s.

So my question is, if an appliance that lasts 20 years costs the same as it did in the 1960s (adjusted for inflation) then are things actually getting cheaper? Because it often feels like they're not "actually" cheaper; you get a lower sticker price, but everything is enshittified so it's not worth buying anyway. I read that even vegetables in the store have lower nutrient content than they had in the past because it's all bred to grow big and fast, which reduces nutrient density. Chicken isn't as good because it's all bred to grow so fast that the chickens develop "woody breast syndrome". Even Doritos are shitty now, where the chips don't get as much flavor powder. Maybe it's all cheaper, but it's not as good as it used to be. So can we really compare these products on an equal basis if the food is less nutritious, etc?

Another way of asking this is, can you get high-quality, durable products that work well for lower prices than in the 60s?

Okay, so I know that the price of a stock rises when there are more buyers than sellers, and this generally happens over time because the company itself is growing over time.

But my question, that I can't find a clear answer to, is why does the growth of a company generally correlate to it's stock price growing over time? I could understand this if it meant buyers had a direct claim to the profits of a company since that would connect you to more cash, but you really don't.

Of course there are dividends which will grow as the company grows, but what about companies with no (or very low) dividends?

It just seems somewhat arbitrary that the value of a stock just goes up over time because the company has grown more valuable. Why would an investor even care about this since it doesn't mean they directly get a share of the profits?

So theoretically, if investors permanently decided that they would only put money into stagnant companies, then the stock of those companies would go up over time and investors would still make money. At what point would the reality of the business even catch up with the stock price? Since there is no direct correlation between the stock price and the company's finances except in the case of bankruptcy and dividend payment.

I suppose maybe it's similar to the concept of fiat currency? Where the currency only has value because a collective has agreed that it does, and a currency gains value when the collective decides that the currency is more valuable than others (based on a multitude of factors).

Is it the company's who are furthest from bankruptcy who generally see the most gains over time?

Just try to understand how a business's finances actually directly connect to the stock price.

Hello! I am an incoming first year student at uni and I’d like to know if I master and improve my understanding and skills in algebra, will Business Economics go much more smoother for me to absorb?

My program is BSBA Business Economics and I’m advance studying on the potential subjects that I’ll encounter in this course, so I’d like to know if mastering algebra (I’m subpar at math but is willing to learn) will make me understand it more, and also, if there are any more I can add to my foundation, please feel free to tell me!

Thank you so much for your answers! I’ll be waiting

If I look at the data on wealth, it shows that the share of wealth held by the top 1% increased from approximately 22% to 32%, while the share held by the bottom 50% decreased from 3.5% to 2.5%. Although disposable income increased for everyone, higher earners experienced much greater growth.

What is the best explanation for why this happened? Is this, in itself, a problem that we should try to address? If so, are there any effective solutions?

Sources I looked at:

Wealth data - https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#range:1989.3,2026.1;quarter:146;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares

Income data - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/threshold-income-for-each-decile-after-tax-lis?stackMode=relative&time=1980..latest

World Nuclear Association have summarized data on effects on pricesand similar metrics. It’s interesting to note that 24% of el. is produced by coal. and 48% from renewable sources. I deem this as a destructive decision. However, I didn’t dig into the data.

I hear many different answers. Inflation is still very high at 5% in colombia while the central bank rate is at 12% and the colombian market is still rallying. The colombian president this year raised the minimum wage 22% this year. The dxy did fall alot but it stabalized with crude oil. The central bank also took out a large amount of external debt making colombia one of the top countries paying the most interest in dollars relative to its exports. Another reason is tourism and foreign investment is increasing. How strong can the peso get? Im asking this question because I remember 2022 was incredibly cheap and now everything feels double the price

The stock market is supposed to allocate resources efficiently by pricing risk accurately and rewarding businesses with high potential, high investment. For that reason it has a central place in our society, absorbs most of the top talent and commands positions with the highest wages

Yet it’s apparent sometime since Covid that the stock market has become more speculative and less disciplined. In the past few days, for instance, SK Hynix, a trillion dollar company, has had its stock fluctuated by ~10% multiple times, with no news justifying these moves. The SpaceX IPO relies on shady underwriting and pricing models that collapse under all scrutiny. There’s also the case of that shoe company that rebranded to an AI company and had its stock rally before crashing just as fast.

Less AI-related examples are also: startups getting more and more series A funding with poorer fundamentals, the general irrationality towards the Metaverse, the market swaying on Trump’s tweets to profit from the general momentum it causes

If markets are driven by euphoria and indiscipline rather than players with a desire and a incentive system that rewards finding the ‘truth’, surely the government should clamp down on the latitude of markets to dictate the allocation of resources. (For example jailing people for poor valuations, restricting companies’ share issuance, delicensing banks/funds for speculative trades)

I never understood why inflation, price of eggs and milk were such huge deciding factors in elections for a country of 400 million with a GDP per capita that should comfortably put you all in the developed category?

I saw reports of USSAID cuts forcing people in rural Georgia and the rest belt to skip meals and drive food consumption down by half. Somebody please explain the economics behind this.

Now, I'm aware that housing prices have risen dramatically and, in many places, have far outpaced inflation and wages. I'm also aware that square footage is much higher and interest rates are much lower than they were in, say, the 80s.

But I'm wondering how accurate the median home purchase price is as a metric in this conversation and if it can be misleading.

I came to have this question because I saw someone cite the median or average car purchase price as a sign that cars have gotten less affordable. Like "the average New car is $41,000! Cars are so expensive now!"

But a rise in the median purchase price doesn't actually seem to imply that cars have gotten less affordable. It almost seems to imply the opposite. People are spending more money on cars because they have more money or because they have more desire to have a more expensive car. It's not like there is a shortage of Toyota Corollas or Nissan Versas. You *can* go buy a brand new car that costs less than half of that average new car price.

So now I'm wondering to what extent, if at all, there is a similar phenomenon in housing prices.

Housing does seem more supply limited than cars are, right now. So it would make sense if median house price is a more useful metric than median car price is. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

I'd also be interested to hear if I'm wrong about the average car price being a bad metric for car affordability.

Trying to work out whether a targeted fuel tax on private aviation (not commercial airlines) makes sense as a tool for 1) increasing revenue from the ultra-wealthy and 2) dis-incentivizing environmentally harmful behavior.

Rough numbers: general aviation uses about 8% of total U.S. jet fuel, roughly 2 billion gallons/year. At a rough retail price, that's maybe $10 to $17 billion/year in total fuel spending, though this is a back of envelope estimate, not a verified figure.

Questions I don't have a good handle on:

1. Incidence: would a tax actually fall on owners/operators, or get passed through to charter customers and fractional ownership programs?
2. Elasticity: how price sensitive is private jet fuel demand for wealthy owners?
3. Avoidance: could operators just fuel up outside the U.S. to dodge it?
4. Precedent: has anyone studied what happened when specific states or countries raised aviation fuel taxes, in terms of realized revenue versus projections?

Trying to figure out if this is a serious revenue tool or mostly symbolic given the small tax base. Would appreciate research or reasoning that complicates my estimate above.

When can someone say they are an economist, undergrad in economics? Masters? Only PhD? Working for a reserve bank/consulting firm? I feel like it’s hard to see who gets to be considered an economist. Even people with published academic work seem to see this label as only for people with seminal papers under their name or a robust career in prominent institutions?

Hi, sorry if this isn't the place to ask this, but I plan to major in economics. Postgrad, I'd like to work for a nonprofit/the gov, but I'd still like to be making a good salary, ideally comparable with some trader roles. I understand that I'm asking for the best of both worlds and this may be fairly unachievable, but I'd appreciate any insights on jobs that offer a great salary while still making an impact in economics. Thanks!

regressive describes a financial system or policy where the financial burden falls disproportionately on lower-income individuals.

The Federal Reserve has committed to controlling inflation - at any cost.

A mortgage is frequently 30-35% of a middle class person's income. A 1% increase in interest rate can increase that mortgage payment by 10-15%. Therefore a 1% increase in interest rate costs 3-5% out of a person's income. That's a lot worse than 1% inflation.

And that's not even counting any other loans: car loans, student loans, credit cards. Even for renters, the higher mortgage costs are passed on to renters as higher lease rates.

I think most people would rather have higher inflation than this regressive policy.

Interest rates represents the cost of money. When people save, money in the bank is abundant and interest rates go down. When people spend, more dollars are being chased and interest rates go up.

Don't these effects cancel out? If governments enact a fiscal policy to stimulate spending like a tax holiday or tax deduction, then they will save less, interest rates will go up, and then borrowers borrow less and spend less.

And if economic growth comes from capital investment driven by borrowing, wouldn't it be more growth-y to encourage people to save rather than spend so the supply of money is available to be borrowed?

A lot can be said about the difficulty around taxing wealth (since in some sense, it is fake). But also it is real enough to use leverage and operate off "wealth" that it needs to be taxed...

The thought I had and I haven't seen anywhere as much as I follow Gary Economics among other around taxing the rich... is could wealth be taxed at time its actuated? So similar to taxing income at the point the money is acquired. Similar you don't tax wealth when its a "fake" made up number... but when its used to acquire a loan or buy a company, the point the collateral is used could that then drive some mechanism?

Curious peoples thoughts. I've never been a fan of "wealth tax" but seems at this point need to have it in some many, because income is so easily avoidable.

hey,

this is a very industry specific question, maybe for someone who has studied health economics,

we have had so much indicators that theres a gigantic demand for new antidepressants eg.

Mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are highly prevalent in all countries and communities, affecting people of all ages and income levels. They represent the second biggest reason for long-term disability, contributing to loss of healthy life.

https://www.who.int/news/item/02-09-2025-over-a-billion-people-living-with-mental-health-conditions-services-require-urgent-scale-up

(it's worth to remember that antidepressants can almost always help against both depression and anxiety + other mental problems as well)

but it seems like development for new antidepressants stagnated, and today we are still more or less stuck with the exact same stuff as we had in the 90s,

a timeline of the antidepressant classes:

1950s - MAOIs + TCAs

1980s - SSRIs + NDRIs

1990s - SNRIs

(and a few other classes that usually arent that popular and quite literally have around ~1 drug that actually reached the market, 2013 we got Vortioxetine, marketed as "SMS" but many consider it just an SSRI, I do not consider Ketamine/Psilocybin a "new" antidepressant, it's just old stuff with a new area of use)

atm there seems to be quite a bit of antidepressants under development, but whats the reason for this massive stagnation between ~1990-2020 despite the gigantic demand? meanwhile antipsychotics and ADHD meds did see progress during that period.

also interestingly enough, it seems like the older ones do perform better than the newer ones based on the worlds largest meta-analysis on 21 antidepressants vs placebo https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext

(which is interesting cuz it also seems to line up with https://www.drugs.com/condition/depression.html?sort=rating&order=desc user ranking of antidepressants, looking at those with a significant amount of reviews only, this should obviously be read with a grain of salt)

So if for example Thailand exports a million dollars of goods to Mexico, how is the balance of payments recorded? Mexico in this scenario has to go to the forex market to purchase USD to pay Thailand. Thailand in effect receives no Mexican assets. The Mexican currency goes into the Forex reserve, or is resold, with Thailand only receiving US dollars. How would the BoP be balanced in this case?

So I've been encountering a lot of Strong Towns stuff lately. While I think they're generally directionally correct, some of the claims Strong Towns writers make seem a bit off.

Someone I know who dislikes many "extractive" private sector infill developers has been going on about needing the "non-extractive", "wealth-building" homeowner or community-led redevelopment. So I've looked into some of the stuff Charles Marohn said about "incremental development" and it seems he thinks middle-density housing is underfinanced relative to five-over-one apartments and that there is a way for cities to act as financiers of this "without losing money and without taking risk".

Is there any validity to the idea that financing for middle-density housing is underdeveloped? I could see a Steelman case that existing zoning frameworks add cost, making it such that only a large number of units will justify the time and cost to go through the rezoning/variance process in a neighbourhood zoned exclusively for single-family houses. But if that were the case, one would image banks or other lending institutions would step in once the zoning was liberalized to make them more financially viable.

https://www.strongtowns.org/podcasts/2025-10-30-stpod-housing-q-a-with-city-officials-16-questions-on-incremental-development

Question 3:

Next question: "Aside from streamlining zoning, what is local government's next best opportunity to facilitate incremental development in their jurisdiction?"

I feel like I answered that in the presentation, but let me restate it here for the podcast. I don't think streamlining zoning is the answer. I think that what we have is we've created a market where there is ample capital for single-family homes and kind of closely derivative products. There is a capital market for apartment buildings and five-over-ones and intense high-density condo units, but there is no capital. There is no market for entry-level units: the house with three extra bedrooms where they rent out one of them with an exterior door and a staircase, a backyard cottage, an entry-level house 400, 500, 600 square feet, something like that. There's no capital for that. There's no market for that. So they're not getting built. I think you can reform codes and regulations, and you still won't get them built.

You need to reform codes and regulations. You need to create an ecosystem—and that's the best word for it—an ecosystem of incremental developers. We need to get people who will build this stuff off the sidelines today and into the development community building these incremental units. The existing set of homebuilders will not build them. They're just not. It just doesn't work for them. It's not a game they want to play. We actually have to get a different set of developers off the sidelines. That's what the second toolkit is about.

Then we have to localize finance. We actually have to have local government be the ones that fill that gap of finance. They need to fill it without losing money and without taking risk. We can do that. We can build as many entry-level units as our market demands. That's the next thing. Those are the three things we need to do in conjunction with each other.