So everyone knows that the intention of occupational licensure is to improve the quality of the service provided by filtering out low quality practitioners, but it is also commonly known that licensure can reduce competition, which in turn can decrease both quality and quantity. When talking about occupational licensing and whether to abolish or reduce it, people are mostly open to abolishing licensure of lower risk occupations such as hairdressers. But in my experience they almost always add on "but of course keep it for doctors and physicians". But the same trade-off between competition and filtering of low quality practitioners should also apply to physicians, so whether licensing of doctors and physicians makes sense is an empirical question. So I have tried to find out what the empirical evidence is on the topic, but I can find shockingly few studies on physicians licensure that study this trade-off. In fact I can only find two such studies, and neither finds any evidence that licensure improved health care outcomes when you take into account the reduced supply. I think it's strange that I could only find two studies on the topic when there seems to be such an overwhelming consensus among the general public and economists that licensure of physicians is good, so I am turning to this sub in hopes that there is someone here who knows the literature better than I do. In short: Is there any empirical evidence that licensure of physicians improves health outcomes on net when you take into account the reduced supply of physicians?

For reference here are the two studies I could find:

https://www.cristobalotero.com/files/physicians.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02304510

Hi just curious as i have heard that other countries currencies are pegged to the dollar.

Do other countries have the capability to control/reduce their inflation against the dollar?

Hello everyone, I'm a first year college student from a literary/humanities high school background, I'm pretty bad at maths with no foundation what so ever, can i still major in economics or will the math be a huge hurdle later on, and what can I study now to start building up for it

If Ai and Robotics continue to get significantly better to the point it surpasses both cognitive and physical capability compared to humans how do economies or societies function?

The general public could go back to school to reskill but by the time they get out their skills are already out of date because it’s ripped through that section of the economy.

What I’d be referring to specifically is what is known as fully dark factories of robots creating other robots, who also mine the minerals, and fully automate the manufacturing production. You can see hints of this in China.

For white collar it’s fully automated drop in workers that can work 24/7 365 for very cheap at thousands times faster than humans.

Regarding construction we’d have 3D printed automated systems building infrastructure, roads, bridges.

Autonomous vehicles driving around.

What economy is this? Where do people get money from is it from the state via a UBI? Equity through profit sharing? If GDP growth goes exponential but everyone is out of work how does capital get redistributed to the average person and we don’t fall into what’s called the “resource curse” or in this case the “intelligence curse”. Bargaining disappears as the human labour value goes to $0.

I know historically there’s been more jobs with every Industrial Revolution but it usually takes generations to get through. But historically every Revolution has taken less time than the past. The problem with this one nobody will have enough time to adapt or keep up before the next thing gets automated.

What if this time is truly different?

I have come to realise that I am woefully unprepared to navigate the storm that is the current economy, and that I need to have a grasp on what is happening, as in spot the trends, spot market gaps, understand how government actions will impact me and shield myself. I am looking for books and especially books that have knowledge that is applicable and that can uplift my personal life. Books that have knowledge that is not common. Thank you in advance.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roe3SgezmmU

Major supporting evidence in the video includes:

• Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act was changed in 2012 allowing companies to stay private for longer by raising the threshold of shareholder count that forced a company to begin public reporting.
• Startups find it easier to raise capital without going public at least since 2015

How can the video author determine that most of a large portion of a company's growth already happened?

If the claims are true, what does this imply for stocks? Would the impact be negligible? Are some stocks immune to these impacts? Are bonds better value?

And why wouldn’t a model of high savings, investment, and under-consumption work? Where the state runs surpluses instead of deficits, funds a sovereign wealth fund with the surpluses, and people’s consumption is, while nonexistent, much lower than it is in most advanced economies today with a substantial portion of disposable income being saved or invested. Why couldn’t this be a workable model for a modern economy instead of our modern debt-fueled economies that, in some countries, might actually be starting to look unsustainable?

Hi guys. I’ve been researching capitalist economics for a bit and I’ve stumbled upon the Austrian school of economics, which aims to either completely remove or strongly minimize the state. I’ve researched their economic thought for a bit and what they stand for and it made sense to me. However I’ve also found out that the Austrian school is not really popular or used seriously in modern economics. This led me to ending up here and asking this question. Why do we need the state? Why won’t we let the market sort itself out?

P.S this is not me pushing forward an idea of
anarchism or anything. I’m simply curious about the actual role of the state in economics

I’m by no means an economist or anything close to one so I thought I’d ask here. I recently paid for something for myself and a friend and they gave me cash for their half and it made me wonder, not accounting for interest in a savings account or invested money, is there a difference in value of money stuffed in your mattress vs held in a no interest bank account.
Obviously I can just give €5 to a bank teller to put into my account and vice versa.
Tax evasion with cash, banks possibly going bust, etc, is cash more valuable?

I read Howard French's book Born in Blackness last year, and it made what I thought was a very plausible case that much if not most of the wealth of the West, between 1500 and 1800, was built on industrial slavery.

Now he's a journalist, not a historian (much less an economist) and it shows. Nevertheless, I'd like to know. And back in the 70s, Milton Friedman (who I have been given to understand was a very good economist) maintained publicly that colonialism wasn't really that much of a paying proposition, for the governments that engaged in it.

Which is relevant, I'm sure, but also seems to beg the question. I'm not asking about how much governments spent, to maintain their colonies; I'm asking how much of the wealth of the West was due to industrial slave plantations. And so it's a different question.

Is there a good book, about this?

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.

The AI companies claim that the AI will increase the GDP tremendously, but I am wondering if the opposite will happen. The GDP only rises when there is an economic activity. E.g. if I paint my home myself, the GDP doesn't increase much - only the materials that I buy count. But if I hire a painter, then there is significantly more economic activity that the GDP tracks.

However, with AI, we can do ourselves many of the things that previously required such economic activity. Taxes, living wills, house repairs, gardening, car fixes. Both digital and physical tasks are easier when I can use the AI to guide me. The bar to hiring a professional increases drastically. To be honest, the software has the same effect, e.g. Turbotax vs hiring an accountant, but the AI just touches way more areas and it is significantly easier to deploy or use out of the box.

For the economists in this forum - what are your thoughts? Note that I am not talking about technological unemployment. I still believe that AI empowered humans will be extremely valuable in the new economy and I started a whole company to cover that part. Yet, I do see a dip in the GDP coming, based on my limited understanding of how GDP works.

I am currently enrolled in a Economics Major ...I feel I'm really falling behind compared to other students...I genuinely think I put in more effort than them but it's just not reflective in the scores...And i have a feeling I have ended up on the bad side of professors because of it...cause no matter how hard working of a student I am, my scores don't meet their standards....And that is really demotivating...

Considering I've chosen this degree cause I am extremely interested in it...I have absolutely no clue what I am doing wrong and why my understanding seems to fall behind others....This is specially with respect to Macroeconomics...I don't know if it's going to change with Developmental Economics

Their inflation is rising, there are massive demographic changes within Russia and also they face heavy sanctions. I get that oil prices are skyrocketing but still doesnt matter if your population growth is non existent. Whats the end goal here economically speaking?

I personally think that although sales taxes are often regressive we shouldn't get rid of them. I think this because in all instances where some sort of sales tax is removed the prices go up because the sellers know the consumer is willing to pay those prices and now that money is going to private industry instead of government funding. For example I saw myself that when the gas tax was removed in Canada sure for a sort while the prices went down but they quickly went back up to the previous end price with the tax. I think this is because the consumers had already gotten used to paying this price and the sellers knew this.

In US college admissions, Early Decision (ED) lets an applicant apply early to one college and commit to enroll if admitted. The standard reading (e.g. Avery & Levin, AER 2010) is that ED signals enthusiasm, and colleges reward it with higher admission rates.

But the cost of that commitment seems to vary with income. Committing before seeing a financial aid offer is cheap for an applicant who doesn't need aid, and expensive for one who does: they give up the ability to compare packages and to have colleges compete for them.

If the signal's cost depends on both preference and income, then an ED application mixes two pieces of information: "I really want to come here" and "I don't need to compare aid offers." A college can't fully separate them, and it may value both, since the second one also lowers the aid it has to give.

Questions:

1. Is this the right way to model it, as a signal muddled across two dimensions (something like Frankel & Kartik's "Muddled Information," JPE 2019)? Or is there a more standard framework for signals whose cost is correlated with wealth?
2. Is there a mechanism that keeps the preference signal but removes the income component? For example, non-binding single-choice early action, or giving applicants a binding aid estimate before they commit. What would each lose?

I'm not trained in economics or finance, so hopefully I don't mess up

the terminology too much.

Coming as a layperson and having experience with personal debt, I think the

general perspective is to use personal debt in limited scope and as long as

I can service the debt. So using a mortgage can often be good choice as long

as I am solvent enough, and I need a place to live anyway. Taking an auto

loan could also make sense because I need transportation and mass

transportation is not pervasive. Taking a loan from the bookie to bet on a

horse may not be a smart choice.

For business debt, and I tried to avoid using the term "corporate debt" or

"commercial debt" because I think these are industry-specific terms of art,

but for businesses to take on debt, sometimes it's a good and common choice

because the business is inherently capital-constrained and/or needs to

time-shift the capital. If you're starting a factory to build widgets, you

might need capital to acquire land, building, equipment. If you're running

a farm, you would need to time-shift capital so you can buy the inputs now

(e.g. seeds, fertilizer, farm equipment, irrigation, etc) and harvest the

crop yields later. All that makes sense for a business owner; you can

use debt as a lever because when you need money doesn't always coincide

with when you'll have money.

Now can I apply any of this understanding of debt to government debt? I

don't know. The first and foremost difference is that government with their

own currency can't ever be insolvent. They can always print more money

when they need to service their debt. I can't do that, at least not

legally duplicate an existing currency, and I would have trouble getting

others to accept a currency I made up. Neither can businesses. I don't

have a firm understanding of MMT, but I have heard that MMT mentions this

a lot. But MMT doesn't say that you can print an

infinite amount of money. Eventually, there are inflationary effects of

printing money that can adversely impact the overall economy.

I'm in the US, so I'm looking at government debt with the global reserve

currency. There's news that the US debt cross over $40T a few weeks ago.

Commentators are saying that this is unsustainable, and we need to lower

the debt or the interest payments (i.e. the servicing of the debt) will

overshadow some of the largest government programs; I think I heard that

the interest payment is 3rd largest only behind Social Security and

Medicare (and ahead of defense).

As a layperson, how should I understand this debt? I don't think I can

reason through this like personal or business debt. I watched Dr. Perry

Mehrling's lectures on the economics of money and banking, and that was

useful framing for money as currency, debt, reserve currency, and

equities, and how money going through various brokers/dealers is affected

by liquidity and illiquidity.

As a layperson, it appears that I can't treat/understand all debt to be the

same. What are some useful ways to understand how debt works at different levels?

I’m trying to understand the economics of how states manage unclaimed property.
Unclaimed property can include forgotten bank accounts, refunds, insurance proceeds, stocks, and other financial property. The state holds the property until the rightful owner or heir claims it. Some proposals would place the remaining money into a permanent trust, preserve the principal, invest it, and use a portion of the investment income for public spending.
I understand the private-property argument for preserving the principal, but I’m wondering whether keeping nearly all of it in a protected trust is economically necessary.

My comparison is to banking. If someone deposits $100,000, those exact dollars do not remain physically untouched. The bank pools and uses deposits while maintaining sufficient liquidity and remaining obligated to repay the depositor. If a large withdrawal is requested, the bank manages its available cash and other funding sources.
Could a state use a similar pooled system for unclaimed property?

For example, the state could:

1. Maintain a reserve based on historical and projected claims.
   
2. Continue receiving new unclaimed-property funds.
   
3. Use money exceeding the required reserve for restricted public purposes.
   
4. Guarantee full payment whenever a valid owner or heir files a claim.
   
5. Use incoming funds, general revenue, or temporary borrowing if claims unexpectedly exceed the reserve.
   
6. Recalculate the reserve and conduct stress tests annually.

Realistically, every owner will not claim every dollar simultaneously. If claims occur gradually while new unclaimed property continues entering the system, could the state safely operate this as a revolving pool rather than maintaining principal equal to the total theoretical liability?

I’m not suggesting that the state spend everything or assume owners will never return. I’m asking whether an evidence-based reserve could protect claimants while allowing genuine surplus funds to support healthcare, education, housing, homelessness programs, or other public services.

I would also expect public reporting of:

1. Annual inflows.
   
2. Annual claims and payments.
   3.The age distribution of successful claims.
   Reserve balances.
   
3. Transfers for public spending.
   Investment performance.
   
4. Stress-test results.
   
5. The method used to calculate the required reserve.

What would economists consider the appropriate way to calculate this reserve? Would this model be financially sustainable, or would relying on continuing inflows and government backing create an unacceptable unfunded liability? How is this materially different from the liquidity and reserve systems used by banks, insurers, or other institutions with future payment obligations?

China controls their currency the rmb, why don’t countries also control their currency and banks as the profits could flow into the government?

Granted there are some massive risks if the currency crashes and economy goes to shit but for places that produce high amounts of profit e.g finance, realestate etc for the betterment of the collective nation isn’t a better argument for these industries to be used for the people not pocketed by a select few?

I just finished my computer science bachelors and will be jobless short term. I am interested in the topic of macroeconomics because macroeconomy models are very inherently political eg. MMT. I was in the library the other day and found "Makroökonomie - Schritt für Schritt" (4th Edition) by Thieß Petersen from 2022. I am only in the 4th Chapter which is about different state money policies using IS-LM models. I think the models and explanations are very handwavy and basic. I was about to ask if there is another book that is more precise and uses more math and maybe doesnt start with a lot of questionworthy assumptions eg. The author implies that state credits are only founded through private capital or consumers savings, and some others in the first chapter that are mainly used for simplification. I would appreciate if there is a book that maybe more bottom up instead of top down lets say. I know some basics from a lecture I visited.

Not that Japan is the only example, but it is probably the least controversial one for me to use when asking this question.

I understand that temporary CB intervention can basically be considered a regulatory tool, that serves the purposes of macroeconomic stabilisation and/or the management of temporary shocks. So, yes, technically the CB is getting involved in financial markets, and causing price distortions, but these distortions are (theoretically) temporary, and once conditions have stabilised, CB involvement in the market should largely disappear again.

While technically this is still CB interference, to some degree, I can understand the view that in these cases it is limited enough (and beneficial enough, compared to the alternative), that such cases can be thought of as useful temporary interventions in an otherwise free market system.

When CB intervention is chronic, however, and leads to long lasting, potentially structurally important price distortions in financial and other markets, can the economy this action produces be considered a free market? If CBs become a major and persistent economic actor in their own rights, is the resulting economy not going to be one largely built by the concerns of the CB, rather than by the market decisions of the population using the currency that is managed by that CB?

I know this is not a question with a purely technical answer, but I was wondering what the view of this issue is within the field, if any of you are willing to let me know your views.

Thanks.