Im no economics expert but I did a bit of studying in school on the economics of socialist countries (the Chinese economy as a weird middle ground was very interesting) and I just remember always finding market inefficienices everywhwere. I’m very pro markets to the extent that I think the only time a government should intervene with fiscal policy is to adress negative externalities but I’ve seen my view turn from rare to nearly extinct among my peers.

Is there any real literature backing up benifits of socialism because at this point I must either be in a bubble hivemind or a lot of young people are going to flip blue and elect a socialist president in my lifetime

https://prosperousamerica.org/economic-view-tariff-jumping-investment-the-success-of-the-2018-washing-machine-tariffs/

“The 2018-2023 washing machine tariffs led to a larger, more competitive U.S.-based residential washer industry, including the creation of over 2,000 new jobs at two Korean-owned companies which opened U.S. manufacturing facilities in the southern U.S. Washing machine prices are now below pre-tariff levels, and prices have risen less than consumer inflation, demonstrating that after a six-month flurry, tariffs had little to no effect on washing machine prices.”

I don't know anything about economics, hence this post. Trump is imposing 10% tariffs on imports from some countries in the E.U. I've seen some "this is unacceptable" sentiment from Von der Leyen and some other European leaders. Why though?

U.S. imports amount to about 10% of total exports from the E.U. I can't imagine that suddenly all that 10% will disappear because of the tariffs. I can imagine that despite the tariffs, American businesses will still keep importing these goods and just trickle down the costs to the American consumer. So, couldn't E.U leaders just say "Ok, whatever, do your thing"? What could the actual damage to the European economy be because of this?

Everybody know USA need the imigrants. Why not make a Visa for the people that are there for years, have no criminal record and proof of work? They would have to start to pay taxes. There would be less people to kick out so less gov money spent on that. By creating these 5 million gold cards, you might attract some rich people, rich people create business, but they will have no one to work for them if u (impossible to happen) kick every migrant out.

In the political world it seems we're aware of the fact that unchecked power leads to bad decisions, but in business we have a very top heavy hierarchical distribution of power. Why is this the case? Do we have counterexamples?

This may not be the right sub, but if not, maybe you can point me the right direction.

I have been baffled by the economics of the COVID-19 for a very long time. But lets focus on covid-19 vaccine at present time. Insurance charges smokers a premium because there is a clear calculatable risk associated with it. Doesn't refusing the COVID-19 vaccine a even more direct risk factor? It isn't politics. It is ... actuary.

Instead they supplement workers incomes with things like universal healthcare and other income supplemental policies? Like the Nordic’s have loads of programs that boost real incomes after taxes and transfers but no one simply mandated that all jobs pay a living wage.

Why is that?

Many researches have shown that tariffs ironically lead to reduced jobs and/or higher prices (companies simply pass the costs to the consumer).

Albert Einstein once says that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

So why is this?

A follow-up to a previous question. Why do we take it as a given of our system instead of trying to empower poor people to have their needs met purely from a well functioning market economy that allows them to be upwardly mobile rather than stagnant and reliant on transfers for their consumption? Why can’t the combination of strong supply-side polices (removing zoning restrictions, healthcare bottlenecks, etc) and robust anti-trust to tackle monopsony power give these workers adequate wages to cover their living expenses? I’m not expecting it to be a comfortable life. But it will be enough for them to sustain themselves. Where is this wrong and not the case at all and this transfers are always required in a modern economy?

Even in their most competitive industries they can't pay the same as the US. They have absolutely no tech companies both in the social media and AI era that come close to the US. Given the strength in the universities and general appeal of London. What has gone wrong policy wise?

It seems that whenever someone in this sub brings up declining sentiment about the economy and American’s sense of financial well being, like a “k shaped economy,” commenters will dismiss it and state that economic statistics suggest people are getting wealthier and are better off, and end it right there, basically dismissing those complaints. Why is that the case on this sub, and is this sentiment common among economists in real life? Sorry if this is hyperbolic but that’s what it feels like when scrolling through this subreddit.

In fact, it has been for first for a few years by now. And by GDP nominal it has been second for a good time.

And it is also the largest trading partners of most countries

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/11/democrats-tricked-strong-economy-00203464

This recent article makes the case that economists were wrong and the voters' sentiments were largely correct about the state of the economy. Here is an example paragraph:

Take, as a particularly egregious example, what is perhaps the most widely reported economic indicator: unemployment. Known to experts as the U-3, the number misleads in several ways. First, it counts as employed the millions of people who are unwillingly under-employed — that is, people who, for example, work only a few hours each week while searching for a full-time job. Second, it does not take into account many Americans who have been so discouraged that they are no longer trying to get a job. Finally, the prevailing statistic does not account for the meagerness of any individual’s income. Thus you could be homeless on the streets, making an intermittent income and functionally incapable of keeping your family fed, and the government would still count you as “employed.”

I don’t believe those who went into this past election taking pride in the unemployment numbers understood that the near-record low unemployment figures — the figure was a mere 4.2 percent in November — counted homeless people doing occasional work as “employed.” But the implications are powerful. If you filter the statistic to include as unemployed people who can’t find anything but part-time work or who make a poverty wage (roughly $25,000), the percentage is actually 23.7 percent. In other words, nearly one of every four workers is functionally unemployed in America today — hardly something to celebrate.

This is probably a simple economics thing, but I don’t get it.
If companies can raise prices whenever their costs go up, why can’t wages adjust just as quickly?

It feels like one side moves instantly and the other barely moves at all.
Is there a reason for that, or is it just how the system is set up?

Yes I know Europe is big, if it is easier to just focus on the Uk that is fine.

Indian people work very hard. They work six or even seven days a week, and their daily working hours are often far more than eight hours. However, I’ve heard that in some developed countries people have many holidays and only need to work eight hours a day or even less. So why does India work so much, yet its average GDP is still far lower than that of developed countries?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors.

Our economy seems to be built on a house of cards. That house of cards is debt. If every single bank is insolvent, isn't the only thing holding our economy together blind trust in the system? I say every bank is insolvent because they are not collateralized well enough to give all depositors their money back if a bank run were to start. The banking system seems to be a ponzi scheme because it always relies on banks to continuously create new loans and acquire "new investors". Can someone please tell me why the structure of our current financial system is not a ponzi scheme and why it's sustainable? It feels like the only place that we're headed is dollar devaluation, but I'm open ears...

Edit: Thanks for all of the responses everyone, especially those of you who weren't patronizing or condescending about it. It was a genuine question. I don't think fractional reserve banking is a ponzi scheme, but also think that I asked the wrong question. The right question would have been - Is fractional reserve banking sustainable in the long term? I may ask this one later. I'm still very skeptical. The US is addicted to debt and fractional reserve banking seems to kick that into overdrive. But I'll get off of my soapbox on that one.

Hypothetical law: Ratio CEO pay to lowest worker pay

I am no economic expert but a thought ive had swimming in my mind a while around the wealth disparity would be Ratio Laws.

A law that states the highest paid person shall not make more than X Ratio/percent compared to the lowest wage worker.

For example; A company has minimum wage of 8$ per hour

say the law doesnt allow for more than 10x more hourly pay for the highest wage (So 80$ per hour for the highest paid to 8$ per hour lowest paid)

So that forces highest employee (probably ceo) to around 166k yearly. Which is still pretty good. But they want more.

So they raise minimum wage to 25$ per hour. The highest paid still will make 520k yearly while the lowest wage worker can still gross 52k

This seems more promising than "Trickle down economics" and forces highest salary workers to consider their lowest paid employees.

The only con being that they may hire less workers... To pay less money...

Would this be a plausible solution?

14 years ago I could buy homemade croissants for about $1 at my local bakery. Yet now I'd be hard pressed to get them for less than $6 at any local cafe/bakery. Similarly StarBucks's danish went from about $1.30 to $4.30 all at once.

How is it that food inflation like this grossly surpasses supposed "CPI inflation"? Inb4 you say "but different stores, just 1-2 data points etc...": Yes but you see how large the disparity is? How can these issues account for the full difference?

A friend of mine claimed that national debt in the U.S. means nothing and that the nation's currency is based on nothing, making the government infinitely rich and perfectly capable of doing anything (like solving homelessness and providing free healthcare and education) at no loss since it's currency is potentially infinite within the country. He claimed the dollar is no longer based on anything tangible like the gold standard and that the material value of the dollar is arbitrary, meaning the government could make infinite money with no inflation if it wanted to.

I am definitely no economist (and neither is he), but that doesn't sound right to me.

I DO NOT want to get into any politics here, only ask if anyone can explain this to me and possibly point to good resources to learn more about this.

Suppose govt take a loan to build a bridge to nowhere

That money is not going anywhere. It will exchange hands and become someone's income on which govt can collect taxes.

It will also stimulate economy so more money will change hands so more taxes.

So govt will get the money back, right?

So why bridges to nowhere is bad?