Quotes About Economics

Countries are effectively paid deference in direct and indirect ways if they're huge oil suppliers.

If a war started, the oil price probably would go up, as you said, maybe $5, $6 a barrel until you saw other oil from the extra supplies that are available elsewhere coming into the world, into the market.

If you've got an industry where you've got massive investment, it doesn't matter whether you bring in alternative supplies. You still lose the money on that industry.

As you know, low demand and high supply means a drop in value of anything, including the dollar.

'Perfect competition' is considered both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101. So-called perfectly competitive markets achieve equilibrium when producer supply meets consumer demand.

Any commodity that sees its price going higher will see new mines opening up. When the supply increases, the prices soften. When prices fall, some mines with higher production costs will shut down as they become unviable.

If a currency is to become a growing, an increasing reserve currency, there has to be not only a demand for it there has to be a supply of it.

There's a harsh reality to situations where demand outstrips supply.

The Internet doesn't change everything. It doesn't change supply and demand.

A shortage is a sign that somebody is keeping the price artificially lower than it would be if supply and demand were allowed to operate freely.

Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, where the population growth is very high, whereby you don't have the mortgage low yet. Still the demand outstrips supply by much.

The female of the genus homo is economically dependent on the male. He is her food supply.

Big Water makes an argument straight out of Economics 101. The best way to deliver water to people's homes efficiently, the water barons argue, is to put the process in the hands of the market. If water is scarce, then raise the price - let the law of supply and demand take over!

Like any business, the oil industry runs on the basic premise of supply and demand. The more supply - the lower the price. The higher the demand - the higher price. In other words, the more people who can buy oil, the higher the price of oil.

A home is a home, and excess supply leads to prices falling.

There is no need for government to intervene in money and prices because of changing population or for any other reason. The 'problem' of the proper supply of money is not a problem at all.

You want supply to always be full, and you use price to basically either bring more supply on or get more supply off, or get more demand in the system or get some demand out.

Supply and demand eventually rebalance. We've seen this again and again and again.

The supply price and the demand price should be roughly the same. You're not supposed to have two different prices. According to economists.

In a given year, the government may decide that farmers are growing more raisins than Americans will want to eat. That would cause supply to outstrip demand. Raisin prices would drop. And raisin farmers might go out of business.

It sounds to me like the OLED iPhone is a phone which Apple can't make 40 million of per quarter, at least not today. And if that's true, that means it should be more expensive. Not 'should' in any moral sense, but simply because that's how the principle of supply and demand works.

I strongly believe supply is the best way to address housing affordability.

We have lots of evidence that putting investments in early childhood education, even evidence from very hard-nosed economists, is one of the very best investments that the society can possibly make. And yet we still don't have public support for things like preschools.

In 1925, when Britain went back to the gold standard, that was supported by the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Bank of England, the civil service, the CBI, the TUC, the Times, the Economist; that consensus was very strong.