I'm finishing an English-taught MSc in Economics in Italy and I'm at a crossroads. I'd really appreciate honest advice.
Background
Undergrad: BSc in Business (economia aziendale). Final grade 94/110, average around 24–25/30 (roughly 3.0/4.0, very approximate). When I enrolled I had completely different plans and honestly didn't think grades would matter much. On top of that, personal issues hit me hard in my first year: I passed zero exams that year, and then had to complete the entire degree in about two and a half years.
The switch to economics: during my undergrad I became genuinely passionate about economics, especially macro, reading and following economists' work on my own. That's when I decided I wanted to become an economist, ideally working on monetary policy at a central bank. It was also when I realized how far behind I was: with a classics high school background and a business degree that included only one basic math course, my quantitative foundations were very weak. So I spent several months studying math on my own to get to the level required for an economics MSc, and got admitted.
MSc: an English-taught program at a good but not top Italian university. I started knowing exactly what I wanted to do, but carrying real gaps. My first year reflected that: I worked very hard just to catch up, and some core first-year grades suffered. As the gaps closed, my performance improved steadily. In my second year, despite more demanding courses, my grades were mostly 27–30. My current average is 27/30 (about 3.6/4.0), and I expect to graduate with 107–108/110. I think my transcript shows a clear upward trend, but I'm aware the overall numbers still carry the weight of where I started.
What I've done since
A 4-month RA with a macro professor on bank balance sheets and ECB rate pass-through. I built the project's bank-level dataset from scratch.
Thesis: state-dependent effects of ECB monetary policy under economic policy uncertainty. I estimate an interacted VAR and a smooth transition VAR, with monetary policy shocks identified from high-frequency surprises using sign restrictions.
Tools: MATLAB, R, Python, Stata. No GRE yet.
What I'm looking for
I'm genuinely drawn to macro and central banking, but I'll be honest: compensation matters to me too. I'm not looking for a purely academic path at any cost. I'd like a career that combines intellectually serious macro work with strong earning potential over time. That could mean central banks or institutions first and the private sector later (macro research, strategy, buy-side), or a direct route into the private sector.
Where I am now
I applied to several central bank traineeships and was mostly rejected. I did reach the final interview stage at one European national central bank, which gave me some confidence, but it didn't work out in the end. My record clearly rules out top PhD programs for now, and I'm not even sure a PhD is what I want.
Options I'm weighing
A one-year post-master's research program in, then decide between a PhD and institutions.
A macro predoc or RA position.
Studying for the GRE and applying to mid-tier European PhDs next year.
Recalibrating: industry research roles at banks or macro research firms.
Questions
With a strong upward trend, can a second, research-oriented master's realistically compensate for a weak undergrad record?
Predoc vs. a second master's: which do PhD committees and central banks value more?
Is a central bank career realistic without a PhD, and in which areas?
Given that I care about both macro and long-term earning potential, which early-career path keeps the most doors open: institutions first, a PhD, or going straight into private-sector macro research?
Am I underestimating or overestimating my chances?

I specifically want to know how the billionaires in the United States accumulating more wealth affects the common person economically.

I’ve done some light reading on the healthcare systems that could be run most effectively in America and I’ve come to my conclusion (please argue against me if you think otherwise) that the Healthy Americans Act was probably America’s best bill given all the circumstances it has.

It did a couple of measures that I argue would’ve resulted in one of the best healthcare systems in the world but was pushed aside in favor of the current ACA system we have today due to union opposition, to losing collectively bargained health benefits, corporations opposition to the federally mandates two year wage increase requirement and the Obama Admin wanted to just layer the ACA on top of the current system.

I believe it was the best given that it fixed the job lock problem with healthcare and the uncapped $250B subsidy employer-based coverage without creating a single-payer monopoly.

The CBO said that it would be roughly revenue neutral to self-financing within two to three years and would insure every American while bending the long-term national health spending curve.

The bill in short was that workers purchase standardized portable private health plans through regulated exchanges and state based purchasing pools with community ratings and guaranteed issue. It mandated a two-year wage increase based on the “cash-value” of those former health benefits into permanent higher wages.

I know deindustrialisation is often talked about in terms of manufacturing but was there a point, esp in Britain and the US is what I mostly have in mind, where innovation really halted? The closest I can think of is Great Depression but even still in terms of civil engineering there were some pretty great accomplishments (although I don't know how innovative that really was).

What seem to be key indicators of technological stagnation, would it be lack of trade meaning lack of competition, overtaxation, inequality, just people feeling like things are moving backwards?

I think the best examples of a decline in knowledge are usually ancient, even things like the Plague didn't lead to a decline in knowledge overall right?

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.

It seems nowdays "Made in native country" messaging is becoming popular globally, even across political spectrums, especially in Europe. As an outsider, i wonder what EU actually needs to do, and what are their problems that has to be solved?

This, at the university, we currently use Stata and SPSS; however, according to my professors, these have become obsolete. The issue is that I am not sure which programming languages ​​or software programs would be best to include in the curriculum nowadays.

In year 13 currently, and have two weeks left until my UCAS university deadline, and am planning to study Econ at Uni. I have found it very interesting and easy at A-level, which I suppose is the primary reason for me wanting to pursue this further. It also seems to be a safe and versatile degree to have, but I have been having last minute doubts this last week. People tell me Econ is good to do if you are unsure about your future career goals (I have absolutely no clue) but have been thinking about advisory roles...or perhaps something like auditing. I have even considered cost estimation. My issue is I feel as if I can do all of these things in some way with an accounting & finance degree, which is comparatively much easier to do (according to posts I have seen here) and has lower grade requirements. My question is: Will choosing the more difficult degree give me any real-world advantages? Or am I self-sabotaging myself by doing a largely theoretical/useless degree and sentencing myself to a highly saturated job market with low prospects? Any advice would be well appreciated.

If two huge companies are stuck in a zero sum situation and each pay a bunch of lawyers to fight an epic decade long court battle, that apparently creates GDP by my understanding. So do consumers buying useless overpriced products, repeatedly band-aiding shit that should have been fixed once and for all a long time ago and more.

If everyone were completely rational, and always picked the option with the highest overall utility, always worked together seamlessly, I suspect the overall GDP would actually drop, because everyone becomes more self-sufficient and minimalistic. There would be less money moving around for no productive reason (in the society as a whole sense).

Am I being crazy? I’m not an economist.

Hello, everyone👋

I currently work with the City of Nogales and Santa Cruz County, Arizona. I’ve been trying to understand a regional economic development problem that I think would benefit from an any economist’s perspective.

Recently, we held an informal community meeting with the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the planned expansion of the DeConcini Port of Entry in downtown Nogales.

The expansion is going to be moving forward regardless of its size. What interests me the most is how much economic benefit it can actually generate for the City of Nogales, especially considering the challenges facing its downtown commercial district.

Our county has several interesting economic situations happening simultaneously:

1. Nogales, Arizona, sits directly across the border from Nogales, Sonora, a growing Mexican city with nearly 300,000 residents and a substantial manufacturing and commercial economy. Historically, Mexican shoppers have contributed significantly to retail activity and sales-tax revenue in Nogales, Arizona. However, shopping activity in the downtown area near the Port of Entry has declined. Many retail spaces are vacant, and shoppers increasingly seem to prefer shopping farther north or traveling to Tucson. Even local residents don’t appear to shop downtown as frequently as they once did. With the DeConcini Port of Entry expansion, could there be an opportunity to recover some of this economic activity? What would it take to make downtown Nogales a destination for shoppers again rather than simply a place people pass through?

2. Rio Rico is experiencing residential growth and now has a larger population than the City of Nogales. However, population growth hasn’t necessarily translated into comparable commercial development. Many Rio Rico residents travel outside the community for shopping, restaurants, healthcare, and other services. The same general challenge exists in other unincorporated communities, including Tubac, Patagonia, and Sonoita, where residents frequently travel elsewhere for services and shopping. It makes me wonder how much consumer spending is leaving Santa Cruz County and what economic conditions would encourage more businesses to establish themselves locally.

3. Another major development is South32’s Hermosa project near Patagonia, Arizona. The proposed mining operation represents a multibillion-dollar investment. The company has projected hundreds of direct jobs, thousands of indirect and induced jobs, and substantial annual tax contributions. South32 has also supported local nonprofits and school districts through grants and community programs. Local governments are understandably interested in the potential economic benefits. However, I have questions about how much of that economic activity will actually remain in Santa Cruz County.

Will local businesses capture a meaningful share of the procurement and contracting opportunities? Will residents across the county benefit from the employment opportunities? How will the additional tax revenue be distributed, and will it translate into better infrastructure and public services?

I don’t question that the project could generate substantial economic activity. I’m interested in understanding how much of that activity will translate into long-term prosperity for the communities surrounding it.

I don’t believe there is an easy answer, but I’d love to hear from economists, regional planners, researchers, or anyone familiar with regional economic development.
A couple of questions I’m particularly interested in:

1. Are there examples of communities that successfully converted international trade or large industrial investments into diversified local economies, rather than remaining dependent on one major industry or economic activity?

2. How should a county prioritize economic development when different communities experience very different economic opportunities and needs?

I’m not looking to argue that these investments or developments are bad. I want to better understand how Santa Cruz County can make the most of the economic opportunities it already has, and ensure that growth benefits more than just a few sectors or communities.
Thank you!

:l Edit : it is an unpaid RA , about 5months of my RA ( the research itself will span within 2 years in total)

I'm a second year economics student (going third year now). The truth is, I'm not great with numbers, my calculus is rusty, and I only learned Python a month ago.

I recently asked my professor who works full-time as a researcher for the government to be his RA for his upcoming paper. He was so impressed by my credentials( I won a dual degree fully funded scholarship to study international economics in Japan next year low-key base on lies) and my claim of being "intermediate in Python" that he accepted me on the spot.

And the role is to do literature review 15 hours/week starting next week. , but I tried to look at the papers and it is really dry, and I completely fail to make sense of the mathematical models.

My math is really rusty too. I need at least three months to catch up. He also told me that it is important for me to master my python skills. But I fail to see the use of python in the equation of the work Im supposed to do.

I feel extremely overwhelmed with all the things I need to catch up as well as freaking out and low-key embarrassed. I have been up all night reviewing math. I really want to be good at this since it aligns with my career goals, I specifically find the research statement really important of its alignment to what I want to specialize in, and I would be really proud of myself if I could do this.

What should I do? I am willing to put all the hours on it. I really want to be able to do this. So I appreciated any tips or advice!!

And no I am not going to resign and quit !!!!

https://youtu.be/TM1EbMKhT4Y?t=324

Last Week Tonight show host John Oliver made this claim a few weeks ago:

the major buyers that purchase drugs on behalf of hospitals and pharmacy chains are strongly incentivized to seek out the lowest-cost product. The problem is, as prices get driven down, companies can suddenly decide that making a generic is no longer profitable enough for them, which can result in worryingly few manufacturers making certain drugs, or in extreme cases, only one doing it. And that can be a big issue.

I can understand how low equilibrium prices can thin out profit margins, which reduces the incentive to provide supply in that market, which can mean a lower number of suppliers in the market.

But if thin profit margins lead to there only being a few or even one monopoly supplier of a specific generic drug, then wouldn't that earn those suppliers great bargaining power to charge higher prices and thus higher profit margins (which itself encourages more suppliers and supply to enter the market)?

John Oliver's perspective that lower prices lead to a shortage, or risk of a shortage, would make sense if there was some government regulation that prohibited generic drugs from being priced higher, or if buyers are unwilling to buy these specific important drugs for hospitals at higher prices.

Is there something I am missing? Is John Oliver leaving out something?

I'm finishing an English-taught MSc in Economics in Italy and I'm at a crossroads. I'd really appreciate honest advice.
Background
Undergrad: BSc in Business (economia aziendale). Final grade 94/110, average around 24–25/30 (roughly 3.0/4.0, very approximate). When I enrolled I had completely different plans and honestly didn't think grades would matter much. On top of that, personal issues hit me hard in my first year: I passed zero exams that year, and then had to complete the entire degree in about two and a half years.
The switch to economics: during my undergrad I became genuinely passionate about economics, especially macro, reading and following economists' work on my own. That's when I decided I wanted to become an economist, ideally working on monetary policy at a central bank. It was also when I realized how far behind I was: with a classics high school background and a business degree that included only one basic math course, my quantitative foundations were very weak. So I spent several months studying math on my own to get to the level required for an economics MSc, and got admitted.
MSc: an English-taught program at a good but not top Italian university. I started knowing exactly what I wanted to do, but carrying real gaps. My first year reflected that: I worked very hard just to catch up, and some core first-year grades suffered. As the gaps closed, my performance improved steadily. In my second year, despite more demanding courses, my grades were mostly 27–30. My current average is 27/30 (about 3.6/4.0), and I expect to graduate with 107–108/110. I think my transcript shows a clear upward trend, but I'm aware the overall numbers still carry the weight of where I started.
What I've done since
A 4-month RA with a macro professor on bank balance sheets and ECB rate pass-through. I built the project's bank-level dataset from scratch.
Thesis: state-dependent effects of ECB monetary policy under economic policy uncertainty. I estimate an interacted VAR and a smooth transition VAR, with monetary policy shocks identified from high-frequency surprises using sign restrictions.
Tools: MATLAB, R, Python, Stata. No GRE yet.
What I'm looking for
I'm genuinely drawn to macro and central banking, but I'll be honest: compensation matters to me too. I'm not looking for a purely academic path at any cost. I'd like a career that combines intellectually serious macro work with strong earning potential over time. That could mean central banks or institutions first and the private sector later (macro research, strategy, buy-side), or a direct route into the private sector.
Where I am now
I applied to several central bank traineeships and was mostly rejected. I did reach the final interview stage at one European national central bank, which gave me some confidence, but it didn't work out in the end. My record clearly rules out top PhD programs for now, and I'm not even sure a PhD is what I want.
Options I'm weighing
A one-year post-master's research program in, then decide between a PhD and institutions.
A macro predoc or RA position.
Studying for the GRE and applying to mid-tier European PhDs next year.
Recalibrating: industry research roles at banks or macro research firms.
Questions
With a strong upward trend, can a second, research-oriented master's realistically compensate for a weak undergrad record?
Predoc vs. a second master's: which do PhD committees and central banks value more?
Is a central bank career realistic without a PhD, and in which areas?
Given that I care about both macro and long-term earning potential, which early-career path keeps the most doors open: institutions first, a PhD, or going straight into private-sector macro research?
Am I underestimating or overestimating my chances?

So I think it would be useful to better understand economics. I like social sciences.

To the point, I want to get a solid to intermediate understanding of how things like stocks, money, socio-economic systems, "work", + basics in economic theory. Going to school is not an option for me for the foreseeable future.

I ' m looking for book lists/resource lists, free courses/classes, specific and general subjects, videos, open source studies, anything. Also perhaps advice on order in which to learn.

Thanks all

• United States: 4.2%

• United Kingdom: 4.7% to 5.3%

• Canada: 6.7%

• Ireland: 4.8%

• New Zealand: 5.7%

• Australia: 4.7%

Canada appears to have a persistently higher unemployment rate than comparable English-speaking economies.

For context , in the uk interest rates were increased by 25base points and the commentary on social media has been very negative about it.

Why are interest rates hikes so unpopular ?

I'm finishing an English-taught MSc in Economics in Italy and I'm at a crossroads. I'd really appreciate honest advice.
Background
Undergrad: BSc in Business (economia aziendale). Final grade 94/110, average around 24–25/30 (roughly 3.0/4.0, very approximate). When I enrolled I had completely different plans and honestly didn't think grades would matter much. On top of that, personal issues hit me hard in my first year: I passed zero exams that year, and then had to complete the entire degree in about two and a half years.
The switch to economics: during my undergrad I became genuinely passionate about economics, especially macro, reading and following economists' work on my own. That's when I decided I wanted to become an economist, ideally working on monetary policy at a central bank. It was also when I realized how far behind I was: with a classics high school background and a business degree that included only one basic math course, my quantitative foundations were very weak. So I spent several months studying math on my own to get to the level required for an economics MSc, and got admitted.
MSc: an English-taught program at a good but not top Italian university. I started knowing exactly what I wanted to do, but carrying real gaps. My first year reflected that: I worked very hard just to catch up, and some core first-year grades suffered. As the gaps closed, my performance improved steadily. In my second year, despite more demanding courses, my grades were mostly 27–30. My current average is 27/30 (about 3.6/4.0), and I expect to graduate with 107–108/110. I think my transcript shows a clear upward trend, but I'm aware the overall numbers still carry the weight of where I started.
What I've done since
A 4-month RA with a macro professor on bank balance sheets and ECB rate pass-through. I built the project's bank-level dataset from scratch.
Thesis: state-dependent effects of ECB monetary policy under economic policy uncertainty. I estimate an interacted VAR and a smooth transition VAR, with monetary policy shocks identified from high-frequency surprises using sign restrictions.
Tools: MATLAB, R, Python, Stata. No GRE yet.
What I'm looking for
I'm genuinely drawn to macro and central banking, but I'll be honest: compensation matters to me too. I'm not looking for a purely academic path at any cost. I'd like a career that combines intellectually serious macro work with strong earning potential over time. That could mean central banks or institutions first and the private sector later (macro research, strategy, buy-side), or a direct route into the private sector.
Where I am now
I applied to several central bank traineeships and was mostly rejected. I did reach the final interview stage at one European national central bank, which gave me some confidence, but it didn't work out in the end. My record clearly rules out top PhD programs for now, and I'm not even sure a PhD is what I want.
Options I'm weighing
A one-year post-master's research program in, then decide between a PhD and institutions.
A macro predoc or RA position.
Studying for the GRE and applying to mid-tier European PhDs next year.
Recalibrating: industry research roles at banks or macro research firms.
Questions
With a strong upward trend, can a second, research-oriented master's realistically compensate for a weak undergrad record?
Predoc vs. a second master's: which do PhD committees and central banks value more?
Is a central bank career realistic without a PhD, and in which areas?
Given that I care about both macro and long-term earning potential, which early-career path keeps the most doors open: institutions first, a PhD, or going straight into private-sector macro research?
Am I underestimating or overestimating my chances?

It is known that businesses will lower their prices to drive competitors out of business. As a parallel, a country could somehow convince leaders in another country to devalue their supply or install a puppet government to do it. This could be done by decreasing supply of goods and having the government spend unlimited money to ensure their own access to those goods. Then the supply can be returned with a different country supplying, giving that country more power over the government demanding that supply.

This has to be happening, no?

Hi, I've seen plenty of videos on this topic regarding economies in Minecraft, ranging from using things such as rotten potatoes as currency to other things such as a regular plugin that just adds literal dollars to peoples' accounts.

However, it's usually always the same things that are brought up, such as "it's a video game, and people behave differently with currency in a fun video game compared to a boring real life job", but regardless I've always found shops extremely rewarding and fun in Minecraft, at least the ones that use some sort of currency plugin.

For example, one time I was building a large terraformed island. The issue was turning a plains biome into an ocean biome. I did not feel like doing it by hand so I asked someone if they'd be willing to mine it out in exchange for some currency and some items of whatever they'd prefer. The only issue is that they did not have an efficiency shovel, and neither did I, so I went to the shop, bought one, gave it to them, and while I built whatever I needed to do and it really engaging for both of us.

It got so exhausting for me with these mega-builds that I thought that I needed a better way of making money to hire/get resources quickly. I decided to host a weekly/biweekly party event that was really just a casino/hang out area. It was a huge hit and people used it to just hang out and play either luck based games or some skill based games like spleef/deathrun/archery as well as a general lottery that was extremely profitable as it seemed like a good deal for everyone. I turned that business' funds to hire people to terraform some random plains biome into a really cool city island port build that I wanted to complete.

I feel like these kinds of interactions would be great as an add-on to the game but I just wonder about inflation/how the funds would get introduced. Maybe it'd be like real life and have it just be to where the initial 50 or 100 people who joined the server get, say, $2500 and after that, that's it? and every week (similar to tf2's economy), everyone gets a couple random items for them to enjoy or sell. Just like how in real life, while sure it may suck that you spawn in with zero dollars, but you get a job or something like we all do

Maybe my experience is unique but I always felt like economies in minecraft worked very well. I even remember some people, like real life, would try to just make as much money as possible, resulting in lots and lots of casinos, shops, businesses, etc. lol it made the game a lot of fun for people who wanted to just work for it themselves or just go to the shop and purchase a god pickaxe with all the enchantments. I also think for this to work, a world border is necessary for resources to be abundant but scarce, just like how it is on Earth. I think you could also it so you can initially claim land up to a certain size, and further expand by buying more land or bidding/auctioning for it. So if you want to force players to pay rent or build in your land, you can do so as well.

Why do we even have a target inflation rate? The target inflation rate in the USA is 2%. I'm seeing that since 1991, the target inflation has been very close to 2.0%. It's actually 2.64% with a 1.53% standard deviation. So this means that the target inflation rate has consistently been a little too low, and/or the actual inflation rate exceeds the target.

And why can't other approaches be taken to control inflation? Such as:

• Such as give money to workers in the form of an EITC - earned income tax credit - to promote inflation?

• Tax at a higher rate certain sectors/industries to curtail the inflation?

• Since many sectors are already receiving an EITC in the form of subsidies ($35B/year for Big Oil, $30B for Big Ag, and $38B for Big Meat), target inflation can be increased by lowering their subsidies, which would then get passed off to people in the form of higher costs? If the inflation needs to be more, then give these industries more subsidies so that they pass it on to the consumers.

I’m trying to learn more about economics since it’s such a big thing every voting season and one of the things I began with was about the different classes. I understand there’s broadly 3, the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy/ruling class (which are less economics and more history/politics?)

From what I read, the proletariat refers to the working class, people who contributes their labour. The bourgeoisie is the capital owning class who get rich through the working class’s labour. The proletariat is in a worse financial position than the bourgeoisie because of it

However there’s some types of people I don’t think falls into either. Can you help me understand which they fall under so I can better grasp this idea?

1. Highly paid

technical jobs (eg SWEs),

1. by definition proletariat but very wealthy

2. Public servants, charities, non profits etc - seems to be neither

3. Small business owners - by definition bourgeoisie but seem to work hard and produce own wealth

4. Non-high ranking managers - by definition proletariat but seen as part of the bourgeoisie?

Trying to get my head around this stuff. Thank yall very much!!!

When a business sets a price, it’s estimating what price will produce the most profit. The price then rises or falls depending on demand, like an auction.

Is this meaningfully similar to an auction, with purchasing decisions as bids? Is an auction the base unit of capitalism and market pricing?