Quotes About Economics

If we have an agreement with a country like Mexico, that doesn't support or protect the rights of workers, that doesn't have the same environmental regulations, how can Canadians ever compete with that jurisdiction?

Applying cost-benefit analysis to regulation is no different than what most regulatory agencies do.

I would reject the distinction between a Keynesian moment and a behavioral moment.

I don't entirely reject the idea of efficient markets. It needs updating.

Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real people who are dependent on one another.

Protectionism in all its forms should be rejected, and efforts should be made to discipline measures that constitute barriers to trade.

The major reason for Keynes's rejection of communism was simply that he could scarcely identify with the grubby proletariat.

The narrative related to economics is, I think, very well understood even by the common man.

Value denotes a relation reciprocally existing between two objects, and the precise relation which it denotes is the quantity of the one which can be obtained in exchange for a given quantity of the other.

The idea of capitalism and the relation that black people especially have to capitalism is something that's interesting to us.

The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems - the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behavior and religion.

The object of the law of value is to elucidate the actual exchange relations of commodities.

We have to work towards free trade because otherwise we will miss out on many opportunities for cooperation, and relations amongst countries will become much more difficult.

The result of long-term relationships is better and better quality, and lower and lower costs.

The poverty line in the U.S., for example, has nothing to do with the poverty line in India. It is a relative poverty line. It is reset from time to time but it is related to U.S. median income, so if I set that to be the absolute poverty line everyone in India would essentially be poor.

To the extent the dollar gains strength relative to other currencies, assets priced in those other currencies would become cheaper on a dollar basis.

To measure prices by a currency that is called by the same names as gold, but that is really inferior in value to gold, and then - because those prices are nominally higher than gold prices - to say that they are inflated, relatively to gold, is a perfect absurdity.

I'd rather buy something that is relatively depressed than something that is relatively high.

The economic model was formed by the constraints that I had: a small space, relatively inexpensive building materials, relatively inexpensive investment, a very efficient service line or assembly line.

Given the relativity concept, poverty cannot be eliminated. Indeed, an economic upturn with a broad improvement in household income does not guarantee a decrease in the size of the poor population, especially when the income growth of households below the poverty line is less promising than the overall.

The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism.

Historically, bad money always drives out good. Accordingly, if a central bank anywhere in the world sets up its currency to be backed by any kind of hard currency, it would cause people all around the world to desire that currency for their savings, rather than dollars.

Historically, there has been a bull market in commodities every 20 or 30 years.

There is a respectable body of economic thought that holds that casino gambling is actually economically regressive to a state and a community.