Hey everyone!

Did anyone who applied to PSE hear back about their application?

Thanks in advance!

Hey everyone,

I’ve just received a conditional offer from King’s College London for the MSc Economics & Policy (part-time), and I’m trying to get a better sense of what to expect from the course.

For a bit of context, I’m finishing my undergraduate degree in Economics. I managed fine overall, but I didn’t particularly enjoy the more technical side—especially econometrics and some parts of micro. I’m much more interested in the applied/policy side of economics rather than heavy theory or maths.

I was wondering how technical this programme actually is in practice. Is it manageable for someone who isn’t a big fan of the more mathematical aspects of economics? How intensive is the econometrics component, and is it more applied or still quite theoretical?

Also, since I’ll be doing it part-time, I’m hoping that makes it a bit more manageable—but I’d really appreciate hearing from anyone who’s taken the course (or something similar at KCL) about workload, difficulty, and overall experience.

Any insights would be really helpful—thanks in advance!

How much better is EME holistically? I know it offers more serious/in-depth quant preparation but in terms of PhD placements/signalling, or in terms of job market signalling (non-academia included) will I be at a disadvantage by doing just the regular MSc Econ? I also considered it may be easier for me (UK econ undergrad) to rank higher in MSc Econ which I know is crucial in PhD placements.

Thanks!

Hi I’m currently in my final year of undergrad economics and looking for people to do my survey on fashion/clothing choices + spending habits during recessions!! Takes 3-5 mins max :)

This survey is for the general public (anyone can take part):

https://forms.cloud.microsoft/e/sB54QnqAVR

And then this is for if you work in fashion retail (eg. H&M, Zara, New Look etc)

https://forms.cloud.microsoft/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=VeArfoqCI0W15bd62ZOXhXerrTZWSlxEsV1nW3sicFFUNlBLRkwwUlhTQ1JMWVlVNFQwMDgxOU5BVS4u

Thank you so much!!

Many people approach the Public Cash Money (P.C.M.) proposal with outdated economic "reflexes." Let’s clear the air, starting with the biggest myth:

1. "If the State issues money, won't we get hyperinflation?"

FALSE. First, let’s look at the "success" of the current debt-based system: since 1950, the US Dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power. We already have massive, systemic inflation; it’s just being used to service a $40 Trillion debt instead of funding society.

Inflation occurs only when the supply of money far exceeds the production of goods and services (too much money chasing too few goods).

The P.C.M. solution: Unlike the current "infinite debt" model, the P.C.M. system is governed by a strict institutional brake: the I.V.F. (Fungible Value Index).

• New money is not issued at the whim of politicians.
• It is issued only in proportion to audited, real-world productivity increases.

If the economy produces 5% more value, the system issues 5% more value. It’s a mathematical balance. By removing the "interest bug" ($1.x > $1), we stop the forced devaluation of your time. We aren't "printing money"; we are issuing the value we already produced.

2. "Won’t such a radical shift cause a systemic shock or a total collapse?"

NOT AT ALL. The P.C.M. is designed as a seamless "Software Update" for the economy, not a destructive revolution. Here’s how the transition handles the existing mess:

• Debt Stabilization: Existing debt isn't canceled or "vanished" overnight (which would cause a global heart attack). It remains exactly where it is. However, as debts reach their maturity, they are repaid using P.C.M. Dollars (Value-based) instead of Debt-Dollars.
• The Transition Bridge: We aren't stopping the machine; we are changing the fuel while the engine is running. By phasing out debt-issuance, we gradually stop the exponential growth of the "Interest Monster" without freezing the markets.
• The Inflation Safety Valve: If critics argue that increasing the money supply to fund this transition will cause prices to spike, the P.C.M. has a built-in "Thermostat": the Inflationary Surcharge (Addizionale Inflattiva).

If the I.V.F. (Fungible Value Index) detects an overheating of the money supply relative to real-world production, the system automatically triggers a temporary surcharge to absorb the excess liquidity. It’s a self-regulating loop. Unlike the Fed, which reacts to inflation months too late by crushing the middle class with interest rates, the P.C.M. manages liquidity in real-time based on mathematical certainty.

In short: We aren't jumping off a cliff; we are finally building a bridge to solid ground. 🏛️🌉

3. "Who guarantees that inflation data isn't being manipulated by those in power?"

THE SYSTEM ITSELF. In 1944, at Bretton Woods, we had to rely on human "reports" and opaque central bank spreadsheets because real-time auditing didn't exist. Today, relying on a government "Consumer Price Index" (CPI) is like using a paper map in the age of GPS.

The P.C.M. framework utilizes an automated, decentralized verification layer:

• Real-Time Data Harvesting: Instead of "surveys," an AI layer aggregates anonymized transaction data directly from POS (Point of Sale) terminals and digital exchanges. We don't guess the price of bread; we see it in real-time.
• The Blockchain as an "Immutable Ledger" (Not a Currency): Let’s be crystal clear—P.C.M. is NOT a "blockchain coin" or a crypto-token. God forbid. P.C.M. is an I.V.F. (Fungible Value Index) infrastructure. We use Blockchain technology exclusively for what it was actually invented for: distributed, unforgeable storage.
• Public Auditability: Every citizen, academic, and organization can monitor the data flow on the distributed ledger. No one can "edit" the inflation numbers to make a politician look better. The data is transparent, public, and mathematically verified.

[Image showing a flow chart: POS Data -> AI Aggregator -> Distributed Ledger -> Public Transparency]

By using the Blockchain as a secure vault for data—not as a speculative asset—we eliminate the "human factor" in monetary management. You don't have to trust the P.C.M. managers; you just have to verify the code. Verification over Trust. 🏛️🔓

4. "Is P.C.M. a single global currency?"

FALSE. The P.C.M. paradigm does not aim to erase national identities or create a one-size-fits-all global money. Instead, it introduces a framework for Economic-Equivalent Areas.

• National Sovereignty: There will be PCM Dollars, PCM Euros, PCM Swiss Francs, and so on. Any nation can freely choose to adopt the P.C.M. infrastructure to issue its own currency based on its internal productivity (I.V.F.), finally freeing itself from the debt-trap of private central banking.
• The E.Q.U.A. Concept: To manage international trade and the FOREX market without the "dominance" of a single debt-heavy reserve currency (like the current USD), we introduce the E.Q.U.A.
• What is E.Q.U.A.? It is a Supranational Unit of Account. It is NOT a currency you can spend at the grocery store. It is a mathematical "anchor" used to settle balances between different P.C.M. areas.
• How it works: National P.C.M. currencies are pegged to the E.Q.U.A. based on their real economic performance. This prevents the "currency wars" and predatory devaluations we see today. If a nation produces real value, its currency remains strong against the E.Q.U.A. by design, not by market manipulation.

[Image showing different national PCM currencies connected to a central E.Q.U.A. mathematical anchor]

In short: P.C.M. restores real power to nations. It provides the "tracks" (the infrastructure) and the "anchor" (E.Q.U.A.), but every country remains the conductor of its own train. 🏛️ sovereignty 🔓

5. "Will the Banking System be destroyed?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The P.C.M. paradigm doesn't seek to destroy the banking sector; it seeks to rehabilitate it. In the current debt-trap, banks have become "debt-pushers." Under P.C.M., they return to their true vocation: being the professional guardians and allocators of capital.

The banking architecture remains intact, but with clearly defined, non-conflicting roles:

1. The Central Bank (The Regulator): Its role shifts from "manipulating interest rates to save the system" to pure supervision and control. It becomes the high-tech auditor of the I.V.F. (Fungible Value Index), ensuring that the money supply remains perfectly balanced with real productivity. It is the guardian of the mathematical rules, not a political player.
2. Commercial Banks (The Engine of Growth): They focus on their essential dual mission: Safekeeping Savings and Funding the Real Economy. They provide loans to individuals and businesses based on real P.C.M. liquidity. Without the "Interest Bug" ($1.x > $1) distorting the market, banks can finally focus on evaluating the quality of projects, not just collecting compound interest.
3. Investment Banks (The Risk Takers): They remain the primary players for all speculative assets and high-risk ventures. They operate in a transparent market where risks are clearly defined and separated from the "public" money supply used for essential services.

The result: A stable, professional banking system that serves society instead of enslaving it. We aren't removing the banks; we are removing the "cancer" of debt-issuance that is currently killing them from the inside.

6. "What is the P.C.M. stance on Speculation? Will it be banned?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT, but it will be strictly segregated. The P.C.M. paradigm introduces a revolutionary distinction between Infrastructure (Public Survival) and Speculation (Private Risk).

In the current debt-based system, when a hedge fund bets on the price of wheat and loses, the systemic shock trickles down to your grocery bill. In the P.C.M. world, we apply a simple, brutal, and moral test: "Who pays for your speculation?"

• THE INFRASTRUCTURE (The Sacred Zone): Oil, grain, gas, water, and the monetary supply itself. These are the lifeblood of the community. Speculation on these assets is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. Why? Because if you bet on the price of bread and win, the community pays higher prices. If you lose, the community faces shortages. Result: Prohibition.
• THE SPECULATIVE ZONE (The Fertile Ground): Gold, Silver, Crypto, Private Company Stocks, and Luxury Assets. If you want to bet your fortune on a new tech startup, a meme-coin, or the price of gold, the P.C.M. system offers you a playground of total freedom.

The Golden Rule of P.C.M. Speculation:

"If the answer to 'Who pays for your loss?' is 'Me and my private partners,' then you have total freedom. If the answer is 'The community/The taxpayers,' then the activity is illegal."

Why this works: Under P.C.M., we don't "kill" the spirit of the risk-taker. We just make sure that if a speculator jumps off a financial cliff, they don't drag the grocery store, the gas station, and the pension fund down with them. We protect the Monetary Infrastructure so that the "Speculative Zone" can exist without destroying civilization every 10 years.

The papers on here have tons of good reviews

You can use code "reddit" for 10% off

Reflections from What I Saw in a Starbucks Store

A few days ago, at a Starbucks store, I happened to notice a small incident that led me to quite a few reflections.

A Black man walked up to the restroom door. He pushed it open, took just one look, and immediately became agitated, launching into a string of profanities starting with “F.” He didn’t go in—he turned around and left.

A few minutes later, a young Chinese man came over. He was neatly dressed, clean-looking, and seemed like a student from a nearby university. He opened the door and went straight in without hesitation. A few minutes later, he came out calm and composed, showing no sign of discomfort or displeasure.

At that moment, I thought: it seems the restroom probably isn’t that bad—was the first man overreacting?

Not long after, another young Black man arrived. He opened the door, took just one step inside, then quickly backed out. Waving his hands at the door, he burst into another round of angry shouting, and then left without going in.

At this point, I finally understood: there really was something wrong with that restroom.

A few minutes later, yet another young Chinese man appeared. He was fashionable and well-groomed, and his behavior was almost identical to the previous Chinese man: he opened the door and went in, stayed for a few minutes, and came out calm and expressionless, without the slightest sign of dissatisfaction or discomfort.

Within a short span of time, the reactions of two Black men and two Chinese men to the same restroom formed a stark contrast: the former lost their tempers and cursed loudly; the latter remained unfazed and used it as if nothing was wrong. This made me wonder whether such a difference was merely coincidental, or whether it reflected deeper racial or national characteristics. Although the sample size is small, the contrast in this instance was too striking to ignore.

I finished my coffee and left. Although I was somewhat curious about what kind of “visual scene” was inside that restroom, I ultimately did not go in to check. I have a cleanliness obsession; dirty things make me feel nauseated—whether it’s filth in a toilet, or the journalists and editors of China Youth Daily.

Chinese people can tolerate filth in restrooms, and they can also tolerate the persecution of innocent intellectuals by China Youth Daily*. These two seemingly unrelated phenomena actually share the same root: numbness.

This numbness is precisely what Hannah Arendt referred to as the starting point of the “banality of evil.” When a person can turn a blind eye to filth in a restroom and remain expressionless, they may likewise remain silent—or even become accustomed—when witnessing public power arbitrarily persecuting the innocent.

This Starbucks restroom is nothing more than a small mirror. What it reflects may not only be differences in hygiene habits, but also two different cultural attitudes toward the “unbearable”: one reacts with strong rejection, the other with numb acceptance. Which is healthier? The answer may be self-evident.

Unfortunately, many times, what we truly need to be wary of is not those who loudly curse, but those who walk in and come out as if nothing happened.

##*The “Harvard PhD Case”:

In 2002, Dr. Lin Chen, a Harvard Ph.D., was invited to return to China to serve as the president of a private university. In a country that deeply reveres academic achievement and holds Harvard University in the highest regard, Dr. Chen—the first Harvard Ph.D. to return in decades—was welcomed like a national hero. Xinhua News Agency, People’s Daily, China National Radio, China Central Television, Taiwan’s Central News Agency, major domestic media, and even overseas Chinese-language media all reported positively on his appointment.

However, the unexpected arrival of the first Ph.D. from the “cradle of leaders”—Harvard Kennedy School—disturbed the Communist Youth League faction, who saw themselves as the natural successors of Chinese government leadership. Their mouthpiece, China Youth Daily, promptly published an article accusing Dr. Chen’s Harvard Ph.D. degree of being fake, muddying the previously positive coverage in mainstream media. When third-party media later confirmed that the accusation was entirely false, China Youth Daily did not retract or apologize; instead, it escalated its attacks. Over the following two months, it published multiple articles leveling further false accusations regarding Dr. Chen’s academic credentials, career experience, abilities, character, and conduct—completely defaming a man once regarded by his university colleagues as a “rare genius” comparable to Qian Xuesen. China Youth Daily has to this day refused to allow other media to verify the facts or to let Dr. Chen publicly respond in China, effectively subjecting a returned Chinese elite to social and reputational death.

In 2021, after returning to the United States, Dr. Chen posted on social media and Simplified Chinese forums, denouncing and exposing China Youth Daily’s baseless defamation. He shared his “other side” of the story and efforts to reveal the newspaper’s crimes, but these were obstructed and suppressed by Communist Youth League operatives and agents infiltrated in overseas media. (Such interference is clearly observable on Reddit.) In July 2023, one night in Manhattan, New York, operatives associated with the Communist Youth League and China Youth Daily attempted to assassinate Dr. Chen, but failed.

Due to over two decades of being silenced in China, disruption of his presence on overseas social and independent media by these operatives, and the long-term manipulation and control of Wikipedia, Baidu Baike, and other public knowledge platforms by the Communist Youth League and China Youth Daily, neither the Chinese government nor the public knows the truth of the Harvard Ph.D. case. Western media has also failed to recognize this as the most severe persecution of intellectuals in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution.