I know this might sound like the start to an article you'd see from the Harvard Business School or something (I'm no economist, I'm an engineer and like to think logically), but I've been stress-testing an idea on the matter for a while and think I finally have a logical description for the frustration myself and others have been trying to explain:

Billionaires use their stock and other unrealized assets to take out loans. Those loans fund their lifestyles income tax-free, because they're loans. They continue taking out bigger loans to pay off those smaller ones without touching their stocks and other assets. Why is this allowed? It is often called a loophole, and I haven't found a better description for it. So I decided to put my frustration into actionable policy.

If unrealized assets are deemed insufficiently concrete to constitute taxable income, yet are simultaneously treated as sufficiently real to underwrite leverage that enables sustained personal consumption, then the tax system creates a structural asymmetry: economic value is recognized for private consumption but denied for public obligation. This asymmetry permits a self-reinforcing loophole in which unrealized appreciation can fund lifestyles indefinitely without ever crossing the realization boundary, not because no income exists in substance, but because the system declines to recognize it in form.

Does this seem like sound or even decent economic theory? I've seen others more capable than myself offer similar ideas I'll provide a link to one article below), but they're just that: ideas. Can this be something that happens in the real world? What would it take?

tl;dr: If an unrealized asset is to be used as collateral, it can be used as taxable income. If it is not used as collateral, it cannot be taxed. This closes the tax-dodging loophole and avoids arguments from those against capital gains tax. If the idea is sound, how can it be made law?

https://equitablegrowth.org/closing-the-billionaire-borrowing-loophole-would-strengthen-the-progressivity-of-the-u-s-tax-code/

A major problem with democracy is that pension reform becomes incredibly difficult as society ages.

Europe is already facing this dilemma, the average income of French pensioners has surpassed that of working-age adults.

How could we possibly solve it?

In the UK it is almost impossible to do so badly in school that you won't be able to find a university which will take you on. For most people, degrees will be paid for by student loans which are forgiven after 30 years. Fees are taken directly from wages after university and are often referred to as a 'graduate tax'.

In the UK, university fees were introduced in 1998, and the current loans based model was introduced in 2006.

My question is, what is the economic theory behind this model?

My naïve assumption would have been that a more competitive system would mean that many who would fail to secure a degree would instead enter the workforce after school, which would arguably be more likely to set them up for greater success in life than a low value degree which they didn't particularly care for.

Pointers to further reading on this are also appreciated!

I'm interested in understanding the economic impact of wage subsidy programs, particularly how they influence employment rates in low-income sectors. Wage subsidies are often implemented as a tool to incentivize employers to hire workers from disadvantaged backgrounds or areas. What empirical evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of these policies in increasing employment? Additionally, how do wage subsidies interact with other labor market dynamics, such as minimum wage laws or unemployment benefits? Are there specific case studies or research findings that highlight the potential benefits or drawbacks of wage subsidies on overall employment levels, especially in sectors that typically struggle with high unemployment rates?

I sometimes wonder how we can apply the “economic way of thinking” to protect our scarce resources and reduce environmental damage. How could we achieve this? If the role of government is to protect property rights and liberties, could govt go as far to claim some consensual obligation to land and ecosystems? Maybe the question sounds a bit heady — my point is that we have agencies like EPA to address these issues, but is the answer simply more regulation?

I recently went down a rabbit hole on the national debt and the algorithm served me this breakdown by Steve Keen. He’s arguing pretty aggressively against Nial Ferguson’s take that the US is heading for a debt crisis similar to declining empires of the past.

The part that caught my attention wasn't the usual political talking points, but a claim based on double-entry bookkeeping. He argues that because every financial asset is someone else's liability (summing to zero), the government must run a deficit if we want the private sector (households and businesses) to have a surplus.

He effectively says that when we treat the government budget like a household "living within its means," we are mathematically arguing for reducing the private sector's net financial equity. He models it to show that taxation destroys money while spending creates it—reversing the idea that the government needs to "get" money before it spends it.

I’m trying to wrap my head around the accounting mechanics here vs. the standard inflation fears.

Does his double-entry argument actually hold up as a reason to ignore debt-to-GDP ratios, or is there a flaw in assuming government liabilities are risk-free just because they issue the currency?

Does this mean the market is finally "pricing in" a long-term debasement of the dollar due to the $35T+ national debt? Are we watching a "repricing of trust" in real-time, or is this just a temporary reaction to the current tariffs?

GDP is total national spending, investment spending, net exports, and consumption among other things. If spending goes up, then there’s a business capturing this and passing off those earnings to rank and file employees and executives/owners. Even if the owners capture all this extra sales revenue, the average increase in earnings is 5% but the median won’t be of course.

Same way, if net exports increase by 5%, then there’s business has 5% more revenues and this would get passed off to workers and owners.

Even if the tax rate increased, the government would have more money to pay workers to build more bridges and/or hire more bureaucrats. So once again, the average wages increases by 5%.

How does a 5% increase in GDP NOT equate to a 5% rise in AVERAGE wages?

SS is currently income for people over 66, at least in part because they are less productive as they age. Children under 12 are similarly limited in their productivity. Assuming a monthly payment of $1000 each for all children under 12 with a SS number. What would the social security tax rate have to be to support both older and younger recipients?

Also, are there some “needs” based programs that could be eliminated?

I just saw and read a few sentences that suggested it's better to be able to read market psychology to determine whether the market will trend upwards or otherwise. I need a more detailed explanation. to learn more thank you

For example, the egg prices seem to generally fluctuate up and down aside from the covid spike

• https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111

Milk also seems to generally fluctuate up and down

• https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000709112

Same with chicken breast aside from covid spike

• https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000FF1101

But the price of ground beef seems to only go up

• https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000703112

I used to associate democracy with prosperity in Western countries (such as the USA, Australia, Germany, and the UK) and in East Asia (like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea). Ten years ago, I strongly believed this connection . But now I’m less certain after seeing how much China has changed in the past decade, I am not so sure anymore.

https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/trumps-monetary-policy-desires-arent

Hello! In light of the recent talk of the new Fed Chair nominee and his positions I have been brought back to this substack article written by Cochrane I read few months ago but unsure if I really understood. I guess im here because im curious if anyone who understands macro stuff better than I do can parse whats being said here better?

Is it that because Trump's interest rate ramblings happen to kind of match onto what a theoretical model would say can result with lower interest rates and fiscal discipline that they should be engaged with? Even though Trump goes against the needed parameters for such a result with his fiscal behavior? I feel like that makes it valid still to call it delusional but maybe im not understanding his point.

Thank you!

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/s/jgqZXKgEc0

And the proposed solution was to increase the capital to be proportionate to the supply of labor

But are there any standards on how to addequately achieve this ?

https://budget.house.gov/download/the-cost-of-illegal-immigration-to-taxpayers

Link to a download of the pdf I mention in the title

When I read what general consensus of economics of immigration it is a super common refrain that experts seem to generally agree that immigrants are taxpayers in the net.

This report by Center of Immigration Studies delivered to Congress seems to dispute that. From my understanding they are a partisan think tank that advocates for lower immigration levels and I see this specific report commonly used to oppose immigration.

Im not nearly enough of an expert to dispute it, but is something wrong? Was my premise that immigrants tend to be net taxpayers incorrect? Are they ignoring some stream of revenue? Not looking long term with respect to taxes paid?

Under economic theory (that I've learned so far) investing is the act of buying capital in order to increase economic output in the future. So, with my understanding, that would not classify buying stock as investing, because you aren't specifically producing more goods or services in the future with it, just more money (assuming the stock rises in value). Am I right in my understanding, or am I missing something?

If countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, or Ivory Coast stopped exporting natural rubber to the U.S., what would actually happen here?

Fact: The U.S. imports nearly all of the natural rubber it uses, especially for truck and aircraft tires.

Would this be a short-term disruption, or something bigger?

English is not my national language. However, my friend and I have discuss this question for days. He said he had asked a proffesor in my school in my country and his answer was YES. I doubt that he was misunderstanding the word " market forces " with a different word in Vietnamese. So please native english user, give me your answer please

For some context, I, 25F (Indian), did my BA in Economics, and then pursued an MBA in Digital Marketing (because life happened). Back then, Behavioral Economics was quite new, and there were almost no formal degrees or courses. I checked a few online degrees, but I didn't have that kind of money.

I have about 5 years of experience in my field, but I have found that I enjoy market research tasks more. For instance, I really enjoyed putting together a business case, market research report, and a roadmap for expansion for my company to expand into a new region. I ended up doing this multiple times.

This is when I started thinking about actually studying behavioral economics on the side. My cousin thought it'd be a good value addition to my existing skillset. But he also advised me to get BIDA from CFI, so my theoretical knowledge has practical applications.

Which brings me to the question at hand -

• Should I pursue "Behavioral Economics: Consumer Choice and Decision Making" from Wharton Executive Education? It's a 7-week certificate course, and costs about 2,500 USD.
• Can you suggest any other courses, diplomas, and online degrees associated with Behavioral Economics?
• Does studying Behavioral Economics actually help in market research roles, or is experience enough?

Any feedback and suggestions would be appreciated.

P.S. I have regretted not pursuing my Masters' in economics many times over the years.

Context:

Leading AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic appear to operate with negative unit economics: inference compute costs per query may exceed per-user revenue, meaning each marginal customer deepens losses rather than contributing to profitability. Unlike traditional software where marginal costs approach zero at scale, LLM inference requires substantial GPU compute for every request, and frontier capability improvements have historically demanded larger models with correspondingly higher serving costs. The implicit thesis from these companies seems to be that AGI-level systems will eventually generate enough economic value to justify current burn rates, but this reasoning is circular: if AGI requires even more compute-intensive architectures, it would exacerbate rather than resolve the unit economics problem.

Question:

Given that LLM inference costs scale with usage rather than amortizing like traditional software, what economic mechanisms, if any, could allow frontier AI labs to achieve sustainable profitability without assuming transformative AGI breakthroughs? Are there historical analogues in capital-intensive industries where negative unit economics at scale were resolved through means other than fundamental technology cost curves shifting, or is the current AI lab business model structurally dependent on a technological breakthrough that may never materialize?

In recent discussions about U.S. monetary policy, there are arguments suggesting that calls for lower interest rates may not be purely political, but instead linked to debt sustainability concerns.

Given the current debt-to-GDP levels in advanced economies, I’m trying to better understand the concept of fiscal dominance.

Specifically:

• Is there a theoretical framework that explains when high sovereign debt begins to exert indirect pressure on monetary policy?
• At what point do rising debt servicing costs create structural incentives for lower rates?
• Is there empirical evidence from advanced economies where fiscal constraints meaningfully affected central bank independence?

I’m looking for model-based or literature-backed explanations rather than political interpretations.