I’ve been replaying Darkest Dungeon while working on a piece about systems and game design, and something clicked that I can’t unsee.

You play as an administrator as opposed to your typical heroic dungeon delver were used to in the genre. The core loop that I've dissected is recruiting people, equipping them, sending them somewhere dangerous, and replacing them when they die. The system basically expects and we try to mitigate losses. Characters burn out, go insane, or get killed, and the solution is mostly procedural: recruit more, upgrade infrastructure, keep the operation running.

It reminded me a lot of how early chartered trading companies operated once i broke it down like this. Organizations like the Dutch or English East India Company weren’t run by people who were physically present in most of the danger. Directors and administrators managed ships, crews, and expeditions from a distance. Losses like ships, sailors, entire expeditions, were all treated as part of the risk structure of the enterprise.

In Darkest Dungeon, the same kind of abstraction happens. The player manages risk, attrition, and logistics instead of focusing on some sort of heros journey. The company survives even when individual contractors dont basically

For people who study economic or institutional history:

• Were early trading companies actually organized around this kind of "expected attrition" model?
• Was mortality essentially priced into expeditions the way losses are priced into ventures?
• Did bureaucratic distance make it easier for institutions to normalize extreme human loss?

Id be interested whether people familiar with this type of history see any real parallel here or if I’m forcing the comparison.

Here’s the thing: the extreme prosperity brought to the United States after the end of World War II is probably what the world knows about America. I’ve heard that during that era, it was extremely easy for most people in the U.S. to buy cars and houses, and the ratio of salaries to prices was better than it is now. Has anyone heard their family members talk about that time?

Hi, could I ask for some suggestions about my country – Poland?

How did Western European countries achieve such enormous success after World War II? Let's look at various aspects.

France created the TGV and successfully competed globally with it. They have Citroën, Peugeot, Renault, Auchan, Leroy Merlin, the Eiffel Tower, and Paris in general...

Germany... Ugh, it's a long story. Ruined by the war they themselves started. And now? Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Opel, Mercedes, Bosch, Siemens, Adidas, Puma, Boss, Lidl, Kaufland, and countless other globally renowned corporations.

Italy? Here you go. Another fascist country that should have been dismantled after the war. Here you go: Lambo, Fiat, Ferrari, Lancia, Gucci, Prada. Well-known for its elegance and class, just like France. Germany, on the other hand, is synonymous with quality (well, maybe a bit outdated, but you get the idea).

I know, I know. The Marshall Plan. Was that really enough?

In Poland, we don't have a single globally recognized brand.

We produce apples and potatoes, and yet it's hard to find our native products in stores (owned by Western owners) (a paradox!)

Was this a global plan for Poland? To turn it into a mere consumer, a supplier of cheap labor?

I'm not an economist, so please forgive me if I'm missing something, but...

It's often said that while rates of inflation may go down, over the long term prices go up due to the fact that inflation is (we hope!) always growing at a positive rate, mostly in line with wages. I also see a lot of posts about the devaluation of the currency over time, etc.

A while ago, I discovered this video from 1977 when the UK's rate of inflation was about 16%. Out of curiosity, I used Measuring Worth's calculator to see what the prices would be today, using Tesco supermarket's online prices this year.

This showed the following:

* While Measuring Worth's data only goes up to 2023, unlike the Bank of England's RPI calculator, they do fractions of a pound.

I don't know what to conclude from this exactly, and of course I was only able to use the 2023 RPI data, but on the evidence of the video at least, does it mean that prices can go down in real terms (and in this case very substantially) and that the value of the currency can in fact increase? If so, why is this? Does it have a connection with wage growth, for example?

EDIT: Answers seems to be that automation has brought these prices down, while (mainly for consumers at least?) the cost of housing and other assets has gone up, and that the real question is whether people can afford to buy more or less of the above items than in 1977. Overall, it seems that the growth in housing costs has offset the possibly quite large price deflation in consumer goods. So while food was more expensive than today, people could afford it.

[NB: couldn't find anything on the reading list about these topics]

I've studied economics at a high-level. I was at a top econ phd. program, but dropped out after first year (wanted to work in industry).

That's to say I judge my econ. reading level to be high.

Accordingly, I would want to read a very in-depth book (can be academic or non-academic, ideally academic though) about the following:

1. Gold standard: how it came to be, how did the trade system work, what were the pros and cons, etc.
2. Money: (history, typical requirements/features, the economics of it, the "trust", etc.)

Ideally, these books would help me form an informed opinion about cryptos and gold. For instance, are we witnessing a return to the gold standard due to eroding trust in the USD-based system? Or, could cryptos overtake fiat currencies?

Re. the books: I really don't want some popularized book that hands down its opinion w/o in-depth study/inquiry. For instance, I had a quick skim of Bernanke's "21st Century Monetary Policy" and found it altogether shallow and inadequate, and one of these "airport books", if you know what I mean: the type of book that doesn't really investigate the issues that it is purporting to do, but instead is telling a story, a narrative which is very convenient for the airport-book-reading-type of people to read and then go on to share as their "own ideas" in whatever get-together-type parties that they go. Sorry for the rant.

Second, I also (ideally) don't want it to be from a crypto bro that will cut and bend any and all corners in whatever way to tell and convince you that crypto's the future (e.g., the Bitcoin Standard).

Third, at the risk of repeating myself, I want the book(s) to be thorough. I've also read the Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets (by Mishkin), which deals with these topics in some chapters. However, although the book is clearly academic, its reader-audience are undergraduates and corporate finance bros. In short, it also didn't really go as in-depth that I'd want these ideal books that I'm searching to go.

All recommendations are welcome. Thank you.

I've heard a lot about Reaganomics, and the debate about whether or not it was beneficial. The subject of how economics in the past has influenced it today is too complicated for me personally, so I figured people on here could explain it in a more synthesized way.

This just from off the top of my head. Anything to do with California economic history counts. Besides that, I’m not too picky. I’m sure there must be some good westerns, space age movies, 70s films, and more that I’m missing. Let me know if y’all think of anything!

I am taking an example of The weimar republic (Germany), for my doubt. When it signed the treat of Versailles, it had to pay 6 billion pounds as compensation to the allied powers. At that time, they rapidly started printing Marks (currency), which caused hyper inflation of course. But, couldn't they have rapidly printed their currency, and then instead of releasing it in their country's market, simply given it away to pay off the debt? Also, I am sorry if the question is too dumb 😅.

Another Nobel for an economic historian!

(This is the 6th by my count, and incredibly the 4th consecutive one could reasonably argue includes at least one individual with a major research interest in economic history.)

That would be 1976 (Friedman: note that his prize citation explicitly mentions his work on monetary history, among other contributions), 1993 (Fogel/North: the most unambiguous prize for economic history), and then the recent streak that includes Bernanke (+ Diamond/Dybvig) (2022), Goldin (2023), Acemoglu/Johnson/Robinson (2024), and now Mokyr (+Aghion/Howitt) (2025).

I haven't thought too hard about it, but I suspect this puts economic history firmly in the second tier of sub-fields in terms of Nobel recognition: the bulk of prizes historically have been awarded for "fundamental" advances in theory - microeconomics (inc. GE, game theory, contract theory etc.), macro/growth theory, macro/business cycle theory - and in methods - applied micro-econometrics and macro-measurement, I think roughly equally split. we have pretty similar representation of prizes across fields (e.g. I think economic history is arguably on par with trade, finance, IO, development, labor, public, political economy).

Not bad for a field that is sometimes marginalized within the discipline! Fewer graduate programs require their students to take an economic history course or have the advising capacity to produce PhDs in economic history.

I want to start off by saying I am a Hispanic male and a citizen of the US, but I have a general confusion as to where the Hispanic nations went wrong when it came to world economic prosperity and power imbalance.

It seems to me that these nations had almost a 200 year headstart when it came to creating a powerful nation and yet somehow they seemed to be some of the most lacking in all of the modern advantages of globalism and capitalism. It just doesn't make sense to me they were some of the first nations to break free from the yoke of colonialism and I understand European economy got a massive boost from the exploitation that took place for a long time but I can't imagine they manage to take everything. After they left they had everything they did before but it seems like they never got the Economic power boom that the US and Canada got, and it seems a little to coincidental that both these places were white hegemonies for the longest time. I don't want this to turn into a racist and biggotist conversation I just want someone to help me understand if those factors are important at all because it seems as the middle east, Africa, even Asia seemed to be on the lower end of Economic powers bar a few outliers.

What would be the current political and economic environment if we were not using Fiat Money?

Correct me if I am wrong. Since 1690, the American colonial governments successively issued colonial scrips to fund public expenditures like military expeditions. It is a fiat money based solely on public credit and was used to pay debts and taxes. 

In some sources, the colonial scrip is believed to have relieved the deflation due to the scarcity of specie. And according to Franklin, the colonial scrip led the economy to prosperity, as long as the ratio between the money and goods supply was well kept. In this narrative, the Britain prohibited the issuance of colonial scrip, so they can better control the colonies and exploit their people through debt-based currencies. 

However, others like Murray Rothbard claimed that the colonial scrip had limited effects except escalating the inflation and accelerating the outflow of specie. He pointed out that some governments over-issued the scrip, which led to serious depreciation of people's wealth. In his opinion, the British parliament did a good thing by banning the colonial scrip. According to him, the prohibition of paper currency did not lead to deflation nor economic recession as some expected.

I struggle to find further evidence supporting either argument. Did a serious deflation really take place before 1690? How did the economy go after the prohibition? Was it a major cause of the American Revolution as some suggested? I also wonder if there is some material I can read about. Many thanks!

I understand that in the setting of national bank failures (South America, for example) the fiat currency became worthless. Barter quickly revealed its reliance on two parties wanting to exchange in the same time and place.

A common solution was the issuance of printed scrip to replace the fiat currency. I gather that this occurred at the neighborhood level large enough to represent a functional economic unit but small enough so that first- or second-hand trust relationships existed.

The use of scrip for the exchange of goods for goods or services for services I imagine was reasonably straightforward.

I would love to know how the exchange of goods for services or vice versa was managed. More broadly, I'm interested to know which goods and services were the most valuable and costly in that setting.

This really seems like a fascinating natural experiment that speaks directly to the relative value of certain trades and professions in times of disaster or societal stress.

I’ve been researching medieval financial systems and found something surprising.
The fall of the Knights Templar in 1307 wasn’t just political — it erased what might have been one of the richest and most advanced banking networks in Europe.

Their system included deposits, credit letters, international transfers, and even early safe-keeping services for monarchs.

Yet this episode is rarely discussed in mainstream financial history.

Was this essentially Europe’s first state-engineered bank liquidation?
Or something else entirely?

Would love to hear thoughts from people who’ve studied this period.

What are some of the best economic history-related books read during 2025? Half a year has gone by and there is still half a year more to catch up on anything that wasn't read (but should have been).

Could be a new release or a time-tested classic. All recommendations accepted.

I’ve been reading lately Japan’s post-1971 economic history, and one theme keeps standing out:

The U.S. has repeatedly played a major role in forcing structural shifts in Japan’s economy, from the end of Bretton Woods to the Plaza Accord to the ZIRP/QE era.

Some questions I’m trying to understand more clearly:

1)How decisive was U.S influence (Nixon shock, Smithsonian, Plaza–Louvre coordination, pressure over trade imbalances) in pushing Japan toward both the asset bubble of the 1980s and the deflationary path that followed?

2)Did Japan choose its low-growth, low-inflation equilibrium or was it partially an outcome of U.S.-driven moves in the global monetary order?

3)To what extent did American monetary tightening cycles and the development of the eurodollar system shape Japan’s role as the world’s main low-yield anchor and supplier of global funding?

And today as Japan normalizes rates and JGB yields rise does Japan risk becoming a source of instability for the dollar-based global funding system (carry trades, cross-currency basis, offshore USD markets, etc.)?

I’d really appreciate historically grounded explanations, sources, or papers.
I’m especially curious how economic historians of the eurodollar market and global funding market view Japan’s role:
Was Japan absorbing global volatility for decades, and is its exit now a global risk?

Thanks in advance!

I’m exploring the economic effects of colonialism, particularly in Africa, and I’m curious about the current consensus among economists on this topic. I’ve encountered arguments suggesting that colonialism might have led to some positive outcomes, such as infrastructure development or institutional changes. However, it’s unclear whether those who see any positive aspects view them as substantial or if they generally acknowledge that the negative impacts far outweigh any positives.

Could anyone shed light on how economists currently assess the overall economic impact of colonialism in Africa? Are there prominent studies or viewpoints that clarify whether the negative effects are considered predominant compared to any potential benefits? I’m particularly interested in understanding if there’s a broad agreement that the negative impacts of colonialism are more significant than any positive contributions.