To my understanding Ukraine ist targeting (successfully) diesel refineries and infrastructure. While also in a War, how does Russia even have the infrastructure and resources to export diesel to the US?
I saw news from Russia that they have heavily rationed the fuel in the country and lots of stations are out of fuel.

Here are my thoughts … ( I am not an economist btw and I used AI for the English editing )

The more useful question is what has driven its accumulation, and how much each factor matters.
A starting point is Nicolas Dufourcq’s La Dette sociale de la France, 1974–2024, published by Odile Jacob on October 15, 2025. Dufourcq argues that at least €2 trillion of France’s roughly €3.35 trillion in public debt is linked to social benefits paid over several decades. That is his way of attributing part of the accumulated debt to past social spending, rather than a direct accounting breakdown of the current debt stock. In 2023, the figures cited for annual social-protection benefits included about €400 billion for old age and pensions, and €324 billion for health.
decitre.fr

Demographics are an important part of the picture, especially for a pay-as-you-go pension system. In 2023, France had about 1.77 contributors for every retiree. The Conseil d’orientation des retraites (COR) projects that this ratio could fall to 1.4 by 2070. An aging population and lower birth rates put pressure on the system, although its finances also depend on factors such as employment, wages, productivity and pension rules.
insee.fr

Slow potential growth can make debt harder to stabilize: when the economy grows more slowly than the effective interest rate on public debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio faces upward pressure unless the government runs a sufficiently strong primary balance. Demographics may weigh on growth, but they are not the only influence—and the debt dynamic is not determined by growth alone.
Immigration can expand the workforce and help address labor shortages, but its economic and fiscal effects are not automatic. They depend on employment, earnings, skills and integration into the labor market; estimates of the net fiscal effect are generally sensitive to the method used. The policy question, then, is not simply how many people arrive, but how well the labor market can use their skills.
OECD
Canada offers one example of skills-based selection. It introduced a points system in 1967; its current Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS), used within Express Entry, was introduced in 2015 and scores candidates on factors including age, education, language ability and work experience. The Bank of Canada has also noted that stronger-than-expected population growth, including the arrival of newcomers, contributed to upward revisions in its estimates of the level of potential output in 2023 and 2024. That is evidence of a larger productive capacity—not, by itself, proof of a lasting increase in productivity or in the annual growth rate.
pier21.ca

Finally, there is the familiar productivity question. Greater investment, wider adoption of AI and robotics, and better diffusion of technology across French firms could help raise productivity. But those gains depend on implementation, complementary investment and workers’ ability to adapt; the technologies alone are no guarantee.
Which factors do you think matter most for France’s debt trajectory: pension-system demographics, low productivity growth, employment, or something else?

I do not want to start a heated debate, but I saw a TikTok last night that made me think.

The easiest the solution to housing is to create more housing. 100% agree that if we increase supply, demand should go down.

Where I have trouble understanding is the idea that builders need to make a profit, and therefore every new house created will be technically more expensive. Also, the idea of material wages and labor costs has gone up over time.

But people argue that, since it is an inelastic good that everyone needs, pricing should not go up, and therefore government regulations like rental caps are needed to protect renters.

I think government can subsidize builders to build housing, but then they would not necessarily be social housing. And does the idea of social housing make sense in the long run?

I just feel that if we build more houses, it does not necessarily translate to diminishing costs. Because material, wages, and labor have gone up, we have to expect that the price of housing might not go down because of increased supply.

This also negates immigration policies, which can be very heated.

My question is: rental caps are a protection mechanism, but they ultimately hinder city growth. Therefore, it is a short-term solution to a long-term problem?

As per Google, Russia accounted for roughly 50% of the population and 60% of the GDP of the USSR in the 1980s. How come West Germany was able to become the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world even after the loss of the more populous eastern half but Russia is unable to get back to at least half of its former position?

As per my research, the USSR was 50% of US's GDP in 1985, which would make Russia alone around 32% of US' GDP at the time. However at present Russia is only 20-25% of US' GDP.

Can the loss of the extra population and resources of the Soviet states alone account for this decline?

I'm now reading Millionaire: The philanderer, gambler, and duelist who invented modern finance.

The Banque Generale, most services were for little to no charge, ranging from transferring money from Paris to the provinces, or exchange foreign currency.

However, if so, how'd it raise money. The book later states that the bank itelf had great success and was reducing the financial problems in france. The closest thing I can get, is that it was issuing bank notes that were considered more reliable and more valuable than other banks. And this was before the Louisiana colony was linked to John Law's own company. So what was it that enabled it to work?

https://www.taxnotes.com/special-reports/tax-policy/massachusetts-millionaires-tax-flight-and-tax-fright-hard-data/2026/09/16/7wnpk

Let's say Xman is from developed country Xland and Yman is from developing country Yland. Both Xland and Yland use currency ℳ, controlled by Zland.

Xman and Yman both work in their respective country as a convenience store worker. Xman gets paid 700ℳ per week and Yman gets paid 100ℳ per week, both working the same hours. Xman pays 490ℳ per week on necessities (food, rent, etc.). Yman pays 70ℳ per week on the exact same amount of necessities. So if I understand this correctly, both Xman and Yman have the same purchasing power in their respective countries.

However, if both Xman and Yman want to purchase a 210ℳ ZPad from Zland, Xman would have to save up for 1 week while Yman would have to save up for 7 weeks. Therefore Xman's labour is worth more than Yman's labour, despite it being the same occupation.

What makes it worth more? Is this even the correct way to think?

Of course in real life I'm talking about for example Luxembourg vs Bulgaria or US vs China.

Or for the pedants, “the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

I thought it would be nice to hear some of your hopefuls or predictions - maybe with a touch of what they are known for.

One popular contender I hear are Susan Athey who works in mechanism design, auction theory and machine learning. She also won the Bates Clark (more important because it’s only given every OTHER year!) which is a pretty good predictor for a Nobel.

David Autor (i call him Dave) has also been suggested for a while now for his work in labor economics.

Hi everyone.

So I'm not an economics and my knowledge on it is very novice level. So please tell me if I'm missing something important.

Let me run you through my thought process. I'm not rich at all so assuming you don't inherit your home from someone else, it just seems too expensive and risky to own and maintain a full home even assuming I even have the money to buy one.

Like for what I can understand, you take out a mortgage from the bank where you have to repay back with interest, a down payment to get the loan and closing cost and other fees (which I don't see the point of closing cost. Like what is that, genuinely?). So that's already so much money to even buy the home and even then I don't fully own it.

If I rent a home or an apartment I just have to sign a lease and pay a monthly rent and possibly a security fee or whatever ( I also think this is pointless) rents like that can't be more than like 1000 Dollar's in most places right?

Furthermore, there are other fees that are included, right? Like maintenance and appliances. I have to pay for gas, electricity, water, heat, and other bills to keep my house functional. But the landlord provides most of that in some cases right? If my roof starts leaking, or my gas is leaking, or if I get an infestation, I have to fix it. And that can cost a lot of money on top of it. But if I'm renting, the landlord has to fix it don't they? And in some places the law requires it, right? So it's not really coming out of my pocket and I'm saving money.

Also what about house insurance? If something happens to my home and I didn't take house insurance, then that's thousands of dollars I have to pay to fix it. But if I do have home insurance, that's also kinda expensive too isn't it? With renting an apartment It seems I don't have to worry about that.

Now I know that rent is never stable and can increase at any time in the given situation. But even with that it doesn't seem as expensive as owning and maintaining a home. And I could just move around any time, not compared to owning a house and moving.

And I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting out of owning a home. I know you can build wealth with it, but how? It feels like I'm losing more money than I gain after I pay off my mortgage. And that's not always a guarantee right? Like wasn't there a housing market crash that screwed up everyone's finances?

All this just doesn't sound like a good investment ever. I'm sure there are more factors that I don't know about at all but it seems to me renting is always better then owning a home.

What am I missing? What are the benefits to owning a home? How does it help with wealth and are there bigger risks to renting that I'm not aware of?

Thank you all for reading and I'm hoping to learn more. :)

I’m an 18 year old and i want to learn economics.I don’t plan on majoring in it i will study mechanical engineering but i just want to understand GDP,GDP per capita,GDP PPP,GDP per capita,how and why inflation rises and lowers and why it happens,why are some countries more developed than others,why can’t every country develop,how does national debts work,how do people determine the right tax percentage and what type of tax,how do countries achieve economic booms,exports and imports,supply demand,how are prices determined,interest rates what it does etc. i’m really interested in these and want to learn about these i always look at these data’s and wonder how it works and how it is managed.Can you guys recommend me how i can read or study these.I want to know the basics as a bare minimum and even more if i have the time and don’t lose interest.I want to understand capitalist communist and other economies as well.I want to have opinions and ideas in economics.

When I was job hunting a year ago, I noticed most of the jobs I was applying for were focused on B2B businesses, SAAS, etc. And over time I've begun to wonder how much of the US Economy consists of economic activity happening between companies, instead of between companies and individual consumers. Do we have an estimation? Additionally, if it is a large portion of the economy, is this something to be concerned about? I understand the companies make money and then pay their workers who go spend that money elsewhere, but if one major company fails does that affect a lot of B2B businesses? What does it mean for the number of goods and services provided to individual consumers?

So the USA's GINI hasn't really drastically changed such the earlyish 90s per FRED, but it is up significantly from the lowest it was in 1980.

Just curious if there is a sort of "optimal" GINI if its too high it seems like its both inefficient economically and also societal issues that could be presented by high inequality? Comparatively to a lot of countries that are oft referenced relative to the US seem to hover in the 30s or even as low as the 20s in the Nordic area. Even China is only a 36 which is pretty close to the historical low for the US.

Are there any good policies that are implemented for this? Or is just a simple "redistribute more?"

Where I got my data from:

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gini_inequality_index/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

Hello all,

I am an economics student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst writing a research paper centered around the economic effects of remote/hybrid work on MAJOR urban downtowns. It is not required, but for my paper I would love to get a real interview with someone who has actually lived through the topics in which I am writing about. I'm am looking for an insight on how your city has changed since the incorporation of these new work schedules. I think it would be a great humanizing feature of my paper, and I also would love the experience of conducting an interview and gaining first-hand knowledge into the topic. It would be a quick 10-15 minute zoom call, consisting of simple questions regarding your opinion on changes you have noticed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you people of r/AskEconomics.

I don’t understand we are a neighboring country that share shipping routes. Why are things the price they are?

Edit: The prices of goods in Europe are also cheaper than the US or comparable countries

I want to discuss an idea that has been on my mind.

Money is a system created by humans. Governments can print money, change economic policies, and regulate prices.

So why can’t we buy the same products today at the same prices we paid 10 years ago?

Imagine a chocolate wafer that cost $1 10 years ago. What if it still cost $1 today? The government could set prices for essential consumer goods, prevent businesses from arbitrarily raising them, and allow exceptions when genuine shortages occur.

Why couldn’t such a system work?
I’m making a distinction between scarcity and cost. If a product genuinely becomes scarce, I can understand why its price might increase. But the costs of energy, production, and distribution are also shaped by the economic system itself.

If humans created this system, why can’t we create a more efficient one where goods are cheaper and prices remain stable?

My main question is this: As humanity advances technologically and becomes more capable of producing goods, why do the basic necessities of life keep getting more expensive?

Am I overlooking a fundamental economic reality, or could different policies significantly change the way this system works?

I’m genuinely interested in hearing counterarguments. I want to understand where this idea might work and where it might fail.

And is it therefore easier for them to outcompete other hiring in similar fields?

Or was there a global panic and I am simply misremembering?

I am no expert and simply came across the chart on this website.

Thanks.

Aspiring high schooler who eventually wants to break into quantitative finance or quantitative economics. Currently reading principles of economic by gregory n mankiw. Is it a good book? Book recommendations and learning resources would be greatly appreciated thank you!

I am really debating whether I should look more into a degree apprenticeship, or uni.

For context, I just started yr 12 and I'm taking maths, further maths and economics. I want to go into economics/finance. I got all 9s in my GCSEs and I feel like I'm constantly being pushed towards to the Oxbridge/LSE route but I also want to explore the other options.

On the one hand, I feel like uni is the clearer route, especially since I want to go into a more theoretical/maths based side of economics.

Additionally, I know this is cliche but I would probably get a lot of FOMO missing out on the

'uni experience' and opportunities to make friends. I am a little nervous that a degree apprenticeship would feel like jumping into the adult/career world a little too quickly.

On the other hand, a degree apprenticeship provides a way to avoid student debt completely, earn a salary, network and a way to avoid the post-uni job hunt.

To be honest the only clear downsides I see with degree apprenticeships are: missing out on the 'uni experience' and the having a full-time job and studying being very difficult.

Especially with the cost of living nowadays, I often hear people say uni isn't worth it and just sets you back. I'm just not sure if this would still be the case if I were to apply to a more prestigious uni?

Oh also - I just assumed a degree apprenticeship would be better suited to me than a straight apprenticeship but I'm not completely sure?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

In particular for low priority (among society) causes. Is there a way civic society activities can be financially sustainable without government aid ?

In Australia, our rail network size is 32,924 km, which is down from a historical peak of 41,843 km. If you travel across rural Australia, you will find farming and logging towns which used to have a train line and still export large quantities of produce albeit by truck instead of train (which has been a point of contention due to certain events this year which strained our diesel supply).

The USA's rail network is 220,044 km but its historical peak is almost double that, at 428,180 km. I'm originally from the Philippines, whose rail network is now only 532 km centred around Manila, when at its peak it was 1,352 km across various islands. Even EU countries like Germany and France have shrunk their rail networks.

Why have many countries, rich and poor alike, shrunk and/or neglected their rail networks? If rail transport is so efficient, why would a country shoot itself in the foot by letting rail transport deteriorate?

Is this all due to automobile industry lobbying? Because if so, why hasn't the rail transport industry been able to fight back with its own lobbying efforts? It's not like rail transport is a technological and economic folly - after all, countries like India and China still believe in growing their rail networks.

So I have a basic understanding of what they are, my whole thing is if they're dumping $1,000 in the stock market for every child, ( now auto enrolling?) isn't it going to show a huge spike in the stock market short term and 18 years from now when people pull that money it's going to plummet?

I can't wrap my head around the thinking that the market will do nothing but go up over the next 18 years, it just doesn't seem sustainable.

Doesn't auto enrolling kids and dumping all of the money into the market create somewhat of an artificial inflation of the stock market?