Quotes About Economics

There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity.

None of the recent technologies that have changed the world and created wealth—telecom, computers, aviation—have come out of India. Yet

The system we have, in which there are a few kings and lots of common people, cannot generate wealth. It

The best things in life are free, but sooner or later the government will find a way to tax them.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.

There's no business like show business, but there are several businesses like accounting.

Corn is a necessary, silver is only a superfluity.

Morning walks — rich man walks to digest food a poor to earn.

I always think of my films within the context of where aesthetics meet economics. That's the nature of making art – not being naive about what is possible and getting what you need to tell the story you want to tell.

Design is a way of life, a point of view. It involves the whole complex of visual communications: talent, creative ability, manual skill, and technical knowledge. Aesthetics and economics, technology and psychology are intrinsically related to the process.

These crimes were all motivated by economic jealousy. Either the Negroes in the area were more prosperous than the Whites, or the black workers would not let themselves be exploited thoroughly. In all cases, the principal culprits were never troubled, for the simple reason that they were always incited, encouraged, spurred on, then protected, by the politicians, financiers, and authorities, and above all, by the reactionary press.

Breaking away from the illusion of market objectivity is the first step towards understanding capitalism.

Britain also banned exports from its colonies that competed with its own products, home and abroad. It banned cotton textile imports from India ('calicoes'), which were then superior to the British ones. In 1699 it banned the export of woolen cloth from its colonies to other countries (the Wool Act), destroying the Irish woolen industry and stifling the emergence of woollen manufacture in America.

In recommending free trade to developing countries, the Bad Samaritans point out that all the rich countries have free(ish) trade. This is, however, like people advising the parents of a six-year old boy to make him get a job, arguing that successful adults don't live off their parents and, therefore, that being independent must be the reason for their successes. They do not realize that those adults are independent because they are successful, and not the other way around.

95 per cent of economics is common sense made complicated

Free trade economists have to explain how free trade can be an explanation for the economic success of today's rich countries, when it simply had not been practised very much before they became rich.

All technical professionals have an incentive to make themselves look more complicated than they are so that they can justify the high fees their members charge them for their services.

I would go one step further and say that the willingness to challenge professional economists - and other experts - should be the foundation of democracy. When you think about it, if all we have to do is to listen to the experts, what is the point of having a democracy at all? Unless we want our societies to be run by a body of self-elected experts, we all have to learn economics and challenge professional economists

If some markets look free, it is only because we so totally accept the regulations that are propping them up that they become invisible.

The importance of international trade for economic development cannot be overemphasized. But free trade is not the best path to economic development. Trade helps economic development only when the country employs a mixture of protection and open trade, constantly adjusting it according to its changing needs and capabilities. Trade is simply too important for economic development to be left to free trade economists.

This is known as the Pareto criterion and forms the basis for all judgements on social improvements in Neoclassical economics today.

It was only after the Second World War, when the US became top dog and liberalized its trade, that countries like France came to look protectionist.

Once we learn that different economic theories say different things partly because they are based on different ethical and political values, we will have the confidence to discuss economics for what it really is - a political argument - and not a 'science' in which there is clear right and wrong.

Free trade economists have to explain how free trade can be an explanation for the economic success of today's rich countries, when it simply had not been practised very much before they became rich.