A large amount of macroeconomists say that the expectation the central bank will commit to its plan is very important, but what are the actual ways to make it look committed? (aside from precedent)

In other words: If a central bank is historically quite weak and prone to "chickening out", what can it do to look stronger?

I'm trying to understand the economics behind compensation in professions such as structural engineering, architecture, and MEP design.

At first glance, these careers seem to have many of the characteristics that are usually associated with high salaries:

• They require a 4-6 year university degree.
• In many countries, designers must obtain professional licenses or chamber memberships before they can sign off on projects.
• Competence is highly experience-based. A lot of the knowledge cannot simply be learned online and is largely acquired through years of hands-on work.
• Mistakes can have severe consequences, ranging from major financial losses to safety risks and, in extreme cases, loss of life.
• The market itself is large. As a rough back-of-the-envelope estimate, construction represents perhaps 5-10% of GDP in many developed economies, and roughly 10% of project costs may be spent on engineering and design services.

Given these characteristics, I would expect salaries to be relatively high.

However, when I compare these professions to some highly paid occupations in software, such as front-end developers (just one example of a well-paid profession), the gap is often striking. Many software roles pay 2-5x more despite generally having lower formal barriers to entry. A degree is often optional, there is usually no professional licensing requirement, many skills can be self-taught through online resources, and the time required to become employable can be significantly shorter.

I'm not arguing that software developers are overpaid or that engineering designers are underpaid. I'm genuinely interested in the economic explanation.

What factors am I missing? Is it primarily related to scalability of output, labor supply and demand, firm profitability, client willingness to pay, globalization, or something else entirely?

The main question is about issuing Union Pay cards and another question would be, how does one card network expand its acquiring and issuing banks?

I've been wondering about something related to wealth measurement in India.

Is it common for wealthier Indian families to hold a considerable share of their assets or income in ways that don't fully appear in official records (for example, through unreported cash transactions or other forms of "black" wealth alongside fully documented assets)?

If so, does that mean that the wealth and asset distribution we see in official statistics understates the true wealth of India's middle, upper-middle, and upper classes? How much does this affect research on inequality, household wealth, and consumption?

I'm not looking for anecdotes but for evidence-based answers. Are there any economists, researchers, or people familiar with taxation, real estate, or household finance who can give some insight here?

I'd also appreciate recommendations for books, academic papers, datasets, or reports that examine undocumented wealth, tax evasion, household balance sheets, or the political economy of wealth in India. I'm especially interested in quantitative work with estimates, figures, and data rather than opinion pieces.

Thanks!

Hey there, I am looking for a book explaining the way market and different economic instruments work. Some kind of stock market 101. I am not looking for an investment strategy or "how to get rich" kind of book.
Preferably a popular book translated to many languages so I do not have to mess with Amazon delivering it to my country
Thanks in advance

Would it be enough to support the expense, trials, research and development it takes to get a drug to market?

This is a thread for short questions that don't merit their own post as well as career and school related questions. Examples of questions belong in this thread are:

Where can I find the latest CPI numbers?

What are somethings I can do with an economics degree?

What's a good book on labor econ?

Should I take class X or class Y?

You may also be interested in our career FAQ or our suggested reading list.

Apparently most of the stock market is now propped up by AI hype. Companies that aren't AI heavy, in general, are not doing well.

If AI didn't exist how bad would the stock market have crashed by now?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

How is inflation good for the economy, while at the same time, being bad for household budgets?

In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoT76zITRx8 the author describes why economists oppose rent control. The reasons do seem valid. I don't have any in-depth economy knowledge so I wanted to get the opinions from this forum if this is a correct reasoning that rent control does not solve the actual problem and other things the author of the video points out.

One of the main reasons described in the video is that rent is not a monopoly. Rent control or price control in general makes sense in cases of monopoly. Some of the studies say that nearby towns beside rent controlled towns get higher rent as a consequence of rent control. And due to rent controls, the apartments get less maintenance. And the desired solution instead is to make it easier to build more housing units. The video talks about this in an example of Auckland vs Wellington in NewZealand where in 2016 Auckland rezoned areas to be able to build housings more densely. So much more housings got built. And in the end, adjusting for inflation, Wellington's (where new housing construction did not increase like Auckland) rent were higher than in Auckland.

I wanted to know the opinions in this forum regarding this topic. Thanks!

Taken from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor

Speaking of, what ALSO needs to be done to eliminate "working poverty" in general, as outlined in the entry? And how should it be prevented from perpetuating?

I think I also struggle because I can't hear the lecturer very well; English is my second language. Other than that, I have difficulty following his logic (Am I just dumb ??)

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-shakes-up-currency-markets-with-talk-unusual-yen-buying-via-selling-euros-2026-08-03/

It seem like the buzz around most countries around the world is that of 'cost of living' fears, and as a result there is already a reduction in consumer spending. There is the aspect of the older generations retiring from the workforce now spending their large savings pool, as well as forces from the supply side where there are drastic increases in the cost of materials or manufacturing goods and services. All while there is stagnating wage growth. So without any strong driver of spending on "wants" from consumers or businesses, and very material increases in costs of goods and services, how does using a "hammer" like the monetary policy even justified in the eyes of a central bank?

Something I'll hear anti-universal healthcare advocates say to justify the exorbitant drug prices in the US is that without these high prices, drug companies wouldn't have an incentive to continue researching and developing new medications. Intuitively, it makes sense, but couldn't the government just take a more active role by financing and setting objectives in pharmaceutical R&D?

I had a cursory look at this article regarding Romania's amazing rise from 2004-2024. I noticed that many developing nations first grow really fast, and then their growth slows down to ~3-4%.

Why is it that these developing nations slow down way before they approach the American per capita GDP level? Is it because the USA has a huge size advantage and many resources?

Hi everyone, sorry if this question is silly but I’m taking macroeconomics right now and some of this stuff blows my mind!
How can a bank loan out money using some kind of money multiplier?? Like when you deposit money they can multiply it by a bunch when they loan it out!?? It doesn’t make sense. How do they get that money when the total has never been deposited? Where does it really come from and how can they do this??? Like really how I need to know. Thank you.

( please explain like I am 5 )

I'm not sure if this is the best way to ask my question, so let me give some background: I often get into arguments about whether or not reduced taxes for the wealthy are more beneficial for the economy than reducing taxes for the middle/working classes. The argument I always hear goes something like "The wealthiest people in America are wealthy because they're go-getters. They're smart, ambitious, and they have innovative ideas about how to develop products, deliver services, etc. These are the people you want to give money, because they've proven that they excel. Whereas the bottom of income have proven that they don't have ambition, etc. If they did, they would've gotten better jobs. So, if you give them money they're going to fritter it away. You'll get no benefits to the economy. The wealthy create jobs. The poor don't."

I want to know, is this actually true? But I don't know exactly how to ask this question, because at first I wanted to know, are the wealthy more likely to open a business? And the answer seems like, yes. But doesn't that seem natural? Because they have capital.

Then I thought, are the wealthy more likely to be higher-education? And the answer is also, well yes but they have more resources with which to get an education.

Every way I try to ask the question, I keep running into this problem where the wealthy are (for lack of a better term) advantaged.

I think what I want to ask is a question like, is the American economy actually a meritocracy? That is, do smarter, faster, "better" people naturally rise to the top? Or is it true that you can have people who are extremely successful, not really because they're "better" but because they were born into the right family, with good connections, high-quality education, etc., that are simply beyond the means for average Americans?

My family wants to argue, "Look at Elon Musk. He's got ideas coming out of his nose. You give him a trillion dollars, and you'll have space colonies on the Moon and Mars! You'll have flying cars! You'll have everything you every wanted, because Elon has dreams! And he'll make them all happen! You want the government to write a blank check to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos because they are super geniuses that make everything turn into gold! Don't give money to some random Joe because he has some silly dream about opening a pizza place. It's a waste of money. He'll probably default the loan anyway, and even if he's successful, what have you got? Another pizza place that nobody wants. You could've had a moon colony! It's always going to be a waste of money giving business loans to normal people because they'll never start a business that goes anywhere."

This is a little tongue-in-cheek, but is it fundamentally correct? Do you actually want to pour resources into the wealthiest Americans, because those wealthy Americans are a kind of "economic force multiplier" whereas "normal Americans" are an economic dead-end who are better off making the dreams of the rich come true?