Folk economics says that the world is zero sum and that if one person becomes rich it means someone else has become poor. Unfortunately, the bulk of the population believes in folk economics. Real economics says that production and trade are positive sum. If I cut down some trees and build a house from them, I haven't deprived anyone else of a house, I've made the world richer by one house. If you dig up iron ore and turn it into steel, you've made the world richer by that amount of steel. As we work to produce things, the world becomes richer and richer. When we trade with others, if the trade is voluntary, both sides always benefit. If I hand a baker $5 for a loaf of bread, and he accepts the money, I necessarily wanted the bread more than the $5, and the baker necessarily wanted the $5 more than the bread. After the transaction, both parties are better off than when they started. The wealth compounds as we turn our labor and raw materials into knowledge and machines that let us produce ever more with less labor and often less material. No one in ancient Rome could have produced a steam locomotive, the knowledge and the tools needed did not exist. No one in Victorian England could have produced an iPhone; the knowledge and the tools needed did not exist. As we get better and better tools and knowledge and save up more and more capital and invest it in better machines and more information, we accelerate the pace at which we can improve things. The economy has grown exponentially over the last 250 years, not linearly. We have thousands of times the wealth per capita of people a few hundred years ago, not slightly more. And we owe all of this to the fact that production and trade is not a zero sum game. In a society where people trade freely and respect each other's property, you can only become rich by increasing the wealth of the world and trading the things you created with others who want what you've made more than they want the money they got by in turn making things themselves. In other words, every wealthy person is a public benefactor, even if they didn't intend to be, because they've produced things others have wanted more than they wanted the things they traded to get them. Unfortunately, most people do not understand the source of the wealth of the modern world. They believe, incorrectly, in the folk economic version of things where wealth comes from depriving others. In a democracy, this belief is dangerous, because it leads people to support extremely bad policies, policies that could end the engine that has raised all of us out of extreme poverty since the industrial age began.

The economics of local models only make sense in two scenarios: 1. local deployment on consumer / edge device 2. when sovereignty / control is a must It doesn't make any sense deploying locally any one of these huge open source models if you don't fit any of these 2 criteria 1/n

📍Everyday Economics | Jiangxi and Russia Have More in Common Than You Think! A Tour of the Jiangxi Pavilion at the 10th China-Russia Expo #Jiangxi# #Russia# #Expo# @SpoxCHN_MaoNing @KremlinRussia_E @SpoxCHN_LinJian @xuejianosaka @salahzhang @consulat_de @Chinamission2un

MegaETH Economics Note 1 I want to start offering informal notes on the MegaETH economy so people can get a high-level view of what is going on. Please note all figures, tables, graphs, and commentary should be considered preliminary and not to be relied upon (including resolution of prediction markets). Since I wrote on the topic earlier, let’s kick off with an update on the USDM money supply. Full definitions of M0, M1, and M2 are at the bottom. We will ignore M3, since it isn’t relevant for now. April 30, 2026 (TGE Day) M0: ~60 million M1: ~360 million M2: N/A May 15, 2026 (Today) M0: ~51 million M1: ~653 million M2: N/A What we see so far is that USDM supply is overwhelmingly concentrated in Aave. Most of the M0 supply is in DEXes, serving as liquidity primarily on Kumbaya, World Markets, and Prism, in that order. The fall in M0 is appears to be driven by reduced LPing on those protocols, while the M1 supply grew quickly before leveling off at its current level. The main observed demand drivers look like looping USDe and for using USDM as a funding currency, since it can easily be converted to USDC and used to refinance higher-rate debt on other chains. Both appear to be at an equilibrium at the moment. I hesitate to make predictions, but if I were, I would expect M1 to consolidate around here until Aave or another lending protocol provide other offerings that would increase M1. There have been no collateral asset additions to Aave since USDe, and the rate environment on other chains has been settling down, reducing the demand to refinance foreign USDC debt into domestic USDM debt. It’s still early days on MegaETH, so as more apps come online - in particular DeFi apps - I would expect considerable movements in both M0 and M1 supply. It will take deployment of a protocol with time deposits before we begin to see any real difference between M2 and M1. M2 showing up will mean a structured credit market is beginning to develop. I’ll close by noting that the core strengths of MegaETH’s app portfolio at launch have been consumer-facing financial entertainment apps that don’t directly impact the USDM money supply, but increase the velocity of USDM. Given the unexpectedly large monetary base of USDM out of the starting gate, it won’t make discussion of the *overall* USDM velocity of money very high, but are producing legitimate MegaETH GDP. I’ll try to track GDP directly as it grows in relation to the monetary base. Definitions: M0 consists of USDM held by the public outside of deposit-taking protocols, centralized exchanges, and companies M1 consists of 1) M0, 2) demand deposits denominated in USDM at deposit-taking protocols, centralized exchanges, and companies, and (3) other liquid deposits, consisting of Other Checkable Deposits and savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts) M2 consists of (1) M1, (2) time deposits and maturing assets (<6 months) denominated in USDM

Dartmouth College Professor of Economics Douglas Irwin discusses President Donald Trump’s plan to extend a 10% tariff baseline that will cover most trading partners

Reusable rockets changed the economics of getting to space. On-orbit servicing can change the economics of operating in space. That’s good for science, good for exploration, and an important capability as we build the @NASAMoonBase.