r/AskEconomics

I’ve been predicted 4 A*s in A level Maths, Further maths, economics and philosophy, and have been thinking that economics may be a perfect bridge between these subjects as a degree

Recently I was advised that it may be a waste of my potential because it does not demonstrate the extent of the quantitative ability that I am capable of through my mathematics?

Could anyone thats studied economics, maybe at top unis such as cambridge, share any insight? Do you think that there are other courses I should be aiming toward instead?

Thanks,

The strait isnt open, and hardly any refineries in Russia are open, the entire country is nearly out of oil let alone exporting. How are prices going down?

I'm planning a six month backpacking trip starting in mid October 2026. The current plan is Hong Kong, Tokyo, El Nido in the Philippines, Bali, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
The trip means a lot to me. I've been saving for it for a long time and I'll have a budget of around €10,000. I'll also be buying new gear and taking six months away from work, so it's a pretty big commitment both financially and emotionally.
Ever since the conflict involving Iran earlier this year and the disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, I've found myself following oil and energy news almost every day. I spend way too much time reading reports, articles and Reddit discussions about oil markets, strategic reserves and global supply risks.
I know the Strait is open again and oil prices have come down significantly. Most mainstream reporting seems much more optimistic now. At the same time, I keep reading discussions saying that strategic reserves are still unusually low, that current prices don't fully reflect the remaining risks and that another supply shock could still happen if tensions increase again.
My biggest fear isn't really paying a bit more for flights. It's that I invest all this time, money and excitement into the trip and then another major oil shock happens while I'm travelling. I'm worried that flights could become much more expensive, routes could be cancelled, fuel shortages could affect tourism or countries might introduce energy saving measures that significantly change the experience.
I honestly don't know anymore whether I'm making a reasonable risk assessment or whether I've fallen into a rabbit hole by consuming too much information. Part of me thinks I'm simply preparing for something that is very unlikely. Another part keeps thinking that maybe people are underestimating the risks.
I'm not looking for reassurance. If you genuinely think I'm worrying too much, tell me why. If you think my concerns are reasonable, I'd also like to hear why.
I'm especially interested in hearing from people who have experience with long term travel, the airline industry, energy markets or anyone who has travelled through Southeast Asia during previous disruptions.
One small request: please don't leave comments like "if you're already worried now, backpacking probably isn't for you." Those kinds of replies aren't really helpful and don't answer the question I'm asking. If you think my reasoning is flawed, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing where you think I'm going wrong instead.

This might be a stupid question, but I still want to ask it and hear educated opinions. I have been thinking about economic model where 1 hour of work pays 1 currency, no matter what work you do. In this model the prices of everything should adjust to the wages, right? Everyone would have the same amount of money to choose where to put it, so things would not be out of reach for anyone.

One argument I heard is why anyone would do harder jobs like being a doctor if it pays the same. I think this is a weak argument, because it assumes that if you go to medical school to interview students, everyone would say the reason for them being there is money. Which obviously is not the case, humans can have multiple, complex motivations in pursuing a career. Status, passion, strenghts and interests all play a role.

Would this kind of economy work? Why or why not?

hi so I am currently studying bachelors in economics(1st year) and since it is such a theoretical subject, Im really questioning if this degree is even enough. what can I do side by side so that it will be better for me to find a job in the related sector(like some programmings, excel)??

Does a real shock (such as a weather/environmental event, public health crisis, war, port congestion due to supply chain shocks, etc.) have an impact the economy? The answer is "of course." But how do shocks, which occur randomly and themselves are non-cyclical, cause cyclicality?

I understand that one randomly occurring weather event will impact the economy, but what I have not wrapped by head around is how it can cause ongoing cycles. As an analogy, if a pothole damages my car as a one-off, unforeseen, and non-reoccurring event, then how could that pothole cause a future cyclical pattern of my car being repeatedly damaged?

Or, is the claim from Real Business Cycle Theory that business cycles are not cyclical (which I think would not make sense)?

And if they were would that be better?

One thing I often think about is how easy it is to get Economics concepts wrong if you don’t have a degree. But I also don’t know how those concepts are understood without rigor?

In high school I got into “Economics” but mostly the libertarian and Austrian version proliferating those spaces. I thought that the economy was too complex to be understood mathematically and things should be left alone to a neoclassical steady state. In my Econ/Math degree I realized how fundamentally wrong I was about everything.

All this to say how do we bridge the gap and are there successful interventions besides actually learning the discipline?

What do we have for reserves? And why is it not enough?

The more rich people have children, the more wealth will increase; the more poor people have children, the more poverty will increase.

- Madhuri Jain Grover.

I kinda agree, but I think I'm not able to see the whole picture.

What am I missing?

I came across a statement, that radio-carbon dating is set at 1950 CE, as the "present". Thinking about that, do data scientists, historical economists, and climate researchers treat 1950 as a hard baseline for "reliable" global datasets?

And what about the data that was collected prior to the 19th and 20th centuries? Large empires and nations had censuses, priests and scribes, and tracked taxes, population changes, wars, disease outbreaks etc. long before the 19th and 20th centuries.
At which point did we actually cross the threshold for a somewhat standardised, reliable data, with at least some semblance of standards and methods?

Apparently ppp adjusts for healthcare and daycare costs so I really don't get it. Are people just spending too much ?

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and would love some expert thoughts—I can’t quite find resources addressing this specifically.

I’m particularly thinking in hot real estate markets (like my native Canada), and in cases where zoning changes happen in individual cities, towns, or even just neighbourhoods, with the rules outside that jurisdiction held constant.

Weakening zoning rules to allow greater density (or reducing development charges, or design requirements, etc) either provide direct savings to builders or allow greater economies of scale, spreading the land cost across more units.

But when these changes are put in place, if the builders don’t already own the land, wouldn’t landowners factor in that higher expected value of development when setting the prices they demand, resulting in the same economies as before the regulation change for the builders and ultimately for the homebuyers (especially since this is only a small number of parcels that could be developed within the larger unchanged regional market)?

Is there any way to correct for this, short of land value tax models (which I like but aren’t coming to Canada anytime soon)?

If you're looking to buy a property in the next few years, is a similar real estate market collapse in China replicable here in Europe?

Because there are multiple narrative driven statements like how some US states have higher GDP than other countries (i.e. Mississippi) and how California GDP would be at the top of the world ranking even if independent from the States. A question popped up in my head.

How would they be impacted if they were indeed independent countries working outside of the frame that USA gives - access to labor, big market without import/export regulations and so on?

I understand it will for sure will be worse, but how much?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

The general consensus view is that colonialism was bad. Good, I agree.

However, there seems to me to be a common idea that colonialism was an exploitative or parasitic relationship. That the colonizing nations became rich off of the backs of their colonies. It's not hard to see where the intuition for this comes from, Europe got rich at the same time it was going around sticking its flags where they didn't belong, and clearly colonialism was more popular among the European nations than the ones they were colonising.

But I also know that even during the colonial period (and before either reached its height) people criticized it. I believe Adam Smith was a critique of colonialism, not from a moral perspective, but from an economic one. Colonies are expensive and troublesome, it's not that crazy to ask whether they are actually worth the bother, right? Even if countries pursued colonialism with the intention of building wealth, that doesn't mean it worked. Sometimes people do things that are evil and stupid (look at Nazi Germany, for instance).

So, with the benefit of hindsight and 100 odd years of economic insights... Did colonialism even make sense from a purely self-interested perspective? Would the colonising nationals have been better off just not bothering? Or interacting with their global neighbours in a friendlier manner?

If Mexico were as prosperous as Canada, North America would shift to a tripartite of approximate peer-competitors.

Would this be an economic boon for the US, providing a massive, high-consumption market for exports? Or would it prove destructive by dissolving the labor-arbitrage models that underpin the American economy? Are there other dimensions to think about?

Ultimately, would the trade-off of losing regional dominance for the stability of a wealthy, integrated partner leave the United States better or worse off in the long run? I am interested to hear about economists would think about this hypothetical.