By gentrification, I mean the process where higher income residents and investment move into a lower income neighborhood, pushing up property values, rents, and the general cost of living.

What I am trying to understand is whether the core problem is really gentrification itself, or the fact that so many existing residents do not own the assets that appreciate when their neighborhood improves.

In a city like NYC, if you own your home and the neighborhood becomes significantly more desirable, you may benefit enormously from rising property values. If you rent, however, you can face higher costs and possible displacement while receiving none of that upside.

If that is the case, should more public policy be focused on helping lower and middle income residents become homeowners, rather than primarily trying to prevent neighborhoods from becoming more expensive? Or are there economic reasons why that would not solve the underlying problem?

I am a teen from the U.S. and I feel like I know nothing about our economy and economics in general. What is the easiest way to learn from scratch? I have not had the opportunity to take any classes on economics, finance or anything of the sort (it really should be mandatory in school…).

Would love any advice!

I’ve been thinking about a pattern in colonial economic history.
If we exclude settler colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore seem to stand out dramatically among former British colonies in terms of long-term economic development.
Both became extremely wealthy international commercial and financial centers.
And there is another striking similarity: both societies are predominantly ethnic Chinese.
There actually aren’t that many Chinese-majority societies in the modern world, so I don’t think it makes much sense to simply say, “If Chinese culture mattered, why didn’t all Chinese-majority societies become equally rich?” The comparison group is simply too small, and places such as mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore experienced radically different political and historical circumstances.
So my question is more specific:
How much of the exceptional success of Hong Kong and Singapore can reasonably be attributed to characteristics of their Chinese populations and migrant communities, as opposed to British institutions, geography and other historical circumstances?
For example, could factors such as these have mattered?
Chinese diaspora and merchant networks
migration of entrepreneurs, skilled workers and capital
high emphasis on education
high household savings and reinvestment
family business traditions
strong incentives for upward mobility among immigrant populations
Of course, Hong Kong and Singapore also shared several non-ethnic advantages: British common-law traditions, strategic ports, access to global trade networks, relatively small and urbanized territories, and highly favorable geographic positions.
What I find interesting is that Britain ruled many colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, yet very few developed anywhere near the level of Hong Kong or Singapore.
So is it reasonable to argue that their success came from an unusually effective combination of:
Chinese human capital and commercial networks + British-derived institutions + strategic geography + historically favorable migration patterns?
And is there any serious economic-history research that attempts to estimate the relative importance of these factors?
I’m particularly interested in answers based on development economics, economic history or comparative colonial history, rather than arguments about biological racial superiority.

The international currency market is extremely liquid and does about a few trillions of dollars in daily trade volume. Suppose a nation has sanctions from the USA. This would limit that nations access to the dollar. However, why can’t the sanction nation convert whatever currency they have to dollars in circumvent the sanctions? Also, if a nation were to be sanctioned, and if a US sanction would weaken their currency, wouldn’t that make their exports even more competitive?

How can countries like China increase their household consumption? Or is it due to the deflation where the Chinese would rather save expecting prices to keep decreasing?

Thanks in advance!!

Greetings gentlemen, I would like to learn international economics of trade. Any ideas how I get started. I got to know about Hecksher & Ohlin theory, would like to know more if other theories exist thank you.

China pegged their currency to the USD, so what were the disadvantages of this policy? Why did they decide to peg their currency to the USD in the first place?

Why don't the Indians do this now that their biggest trading partner is actually the USA?

Also, should an IMPORTING nation never peg a currency to the USD, because if the USD gets stronger, it makes this IMPORTING nation harder to import goods. By the way, China is a net exporting nation, so their currency's strength is correlated with the USD, which is counter intuitive to their needs: When the USA's dollar is strong, then it becomes harder to import goods from the USA, but it makes their exports as easy for the Americans to bring in to the USA. So the only benefit that I can see is that the Americans have more price predictability with the Chinese.

Greetings gentlemen & ladies how do I learn about Behavioral economics? And is there an international aspect to it? Have a beautiful day ahead thank you.

When I read the works of public-facing economists in the media, and the works of academic economists regarding the economy and its robustness, its as if I’m reading two completely descriptions of the world? And it’s not cranks or nobodies in the former camp. In some cases, we’re talking major textbook authors.

The current system of our economy seems to be working incredibly well (the current administration not withstanding). The incentives vs disincentives, the rates of redistribution, tax rates, and regulations all appeared to be the most optimal sets of policies given political constraints. the labor market has continued to shown remarkable resilience despite the fed’s deep hikes over the past couple of years, real wages have continued to outpace inflation, we achieved the vaunted soft landing, and the median person is better off now than they have ever been. There is no need for any structural reforms or any changes to policy, maybe with the exception of tweaks and “nudges” responding to small changes as necessary.

Is this assessment wrong? Is there actual credible disagreement within mainstream economics about the so-called affordability crisis?

According to what I read wealth inequality reduce money velocity due to concentrated passive incomes which transfer wealth to poor spenders and reduce demand?

According to demand side economics which I have read this is not good.

I don't see mainstream economist talking about this seriously.

Am I correct in my assumption?

I am trying to understand the economics of keeping people economically active after the normal retirement age.

For example, imagine a system where people who have reached retirement age could receive an income from social security while working part-time in childcare, with their work also affecting their eventual pension entitlement.

I am particularly interested in how this should be evaluated economically:

How should the cost of supporting someone through social security be compared with the additional taxes, social contributions and economic output generated by their continued work?

How should the effect on their eventual pension be accounted for?

How significant are labour-market substitution effects when people over 65 remain economically active?

Are there established models for estimating the net fiscal effect of increasing labour-force participation among people aged 65+?

I am mainly looking for empirical research or economic models dealing with these questions, particularly in countries with ageing populations and pay-as-you-go pension systems.

Recently I have been wondering about a change in the labor market in the last 20-ish years. The generation of my parents and older would have an entire career in a same company. Being fired was quite rare: either you were a remarkably incompetent employee or the employer tanked. So much that being fired was almost a sign of disgrace, or shame.

Nowadays, getting fired is like that James Franco meme with a noose around his neck asking if it is "first time?". People are expected to retrain at least once during their productive lives because of redundancy. People treat layoffs and reorgs as business as usual. People who stay in the same company for 7+ years are dinosaurs or creatures from another planet. Plus, younger people, or those trying to break into industries, have very long bouts of unemployment, often over a year.

All this to say: are these unemployment disruptions that are now (I suppose) way more frequent than older generations accounted for "effective" lifetime income? For instance, studies claim real wages + benefits and transfers make wages nowadays better than in the past, even accounting for increase in cost of living. But do we adjust these accrued gains over time with the expected increased total time unemployed/not receiving any income (or long periods of lower income due to long underemployment)?

In your opinion, what are the 3-5 most important steps that would need to be taken for there to be a ubiquitous positive outlook on the economy again?

Hello! I have an interest in keeping abreast of new research, but find it hard keeping track of everything that's out there-- particularly because I have broad interests. My favorite research areas are game theory/IO, trade, political econ, public econ, and applied econ, but I kind of want to keep some tabs on a little bit of everything (e.g. most of my job is in macro and finance nowadays so I should probably keep some track on those too). I follow NBER and read a few econ blogs like Delong, Gelman, and Noah Smith, but was wondering if there's an easy way to see what publications are making the rounds nowadays along with maybe the abstract or something to that effect.

Thanks in advance!!!

The last time where my family and everyone around us really felt like we were all making money was in 2019 before Covid hit. And then it all went to sh*t. But 6 years later, the growth still isn't that impressive. It feels like everyone's just surviving rather than earning. This seems like the case everywhere across the world right now, from the US to Europe to China to Japan to Australia. The graduate job market is actively shrinking, youth unemployment rate is abnormally high, consumer confidence aren't that great either. I understand that on paper we're supposed to be swimming in money, but it doesn't look like that right now. Can someone explain why? And when will we enter into another period of favourable growth?

I’m just wondering if there’s any economic systems or ideas that differ radically from conventional knowledge, but still make sense in theory

To explain the idea better: in my own field of software, it’s not uncommon for one standard to be chosen over another, even though one may have some “objective” advantages. For example, x86 being chosen over RISC architecture. Both of these choices work, one just happened to be chosen and then we ran with that one. There are also many standards today that are competing and a winner will likely come soon

Is there anything like this in economics? Like are there economic ideas that are totally viable, but are a fundamental departure from our conventionally accepted ideas of economics?

I’m not an Econ pro, but as I understand it: when inflation is deemed ‘too high’, the fed raises interest rates to pull money out of the economy and cool off inflation. Right?

Is there really no better solution for inflation?
“the price of gasoline is too high (because of a war) let’s make sure mortgage rates are higher so people have less money to spend on gas, and less need to invest outside of t-bills.“

Surely both political parties in the us would act to lower inflation if there were well characterized proposals to do so. Is there a collection of these proposal somewhere for our leaders to draw from?

I'm asking for two reasons.

1. My council (Slough) is consulting on making more landlords get HMO licences. Other councils will have had.

2. The law has changed a couple of times in the last decade or so and I'd be interested to know what effect these changes

I'm not too into politics but I remember a 2018 law banning landlords from renting out small rooms as HMO bedrooms. There's obviously the renters rights act with a broad scope and which may be too recent to have good evidence on the long term effect. Even if so, I'd be interested to hear any predictions that we can be confident about, and what we'll know after time has passed.

What I'd most like to know about is the effect on people who are worst off (I'm sure that could mean multiple things). For transparency, I'm a tenant but doing fine. I'd love to hear your opinion or see links to well informed articles / videos on the subject.

sorry to ask a history of thought question, but i'm trying to figure out the best available text on the historical emergence of marginalism. i know of a few that are either dated (kauder) or too popular (wasserman) but im really looking for contemporary scholarly work. alternatively, i would take whatever scattershot recommendations you all have and i can just try to pick at them all

Many university students take part time jobs that pay about 20,000 to 30,000 VND an hour. That is roughly 0.80 to 1.20 USD. At the same time, a simple meal in many places costs more. A bowl of "pho" or "banh mi" can run around 1.50 USD or even higher. I get that Vietnam is still growing economically. Wages also vary from country to country. Still, it feels odd that work with few required skills may not buy a basic plate of food. And yet, these pay levels do not seem to change much. For years, the same numbers keep showing up, and many people treat them like something ordinary.

Krugman has won a nobel prize and his work is probably very respected till this day but I have heard on other threads (even on this sub) that the things he says these days are kind of lazy analysis, is that true? If so, does this apply to other respected economists that also have a lot of appearances (like youtube interviews) like Acemoglu, Piketty, Stiglitz, etc?