Quotes About Economics

It's a challenge for monetary policy to communicate that our inflation objective is 2 percent.

I don't want Congress setting monetary policy.

One half of the world's people live on less than two dollars a day. This should concern our national security policy as well as our conscience.

Macroeconomic policy can never be devoid of politics: it involves fundamental trade-offs and affects different groups differently.

The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama has argued that liberal democracies, with their political freedom and economic success, have three important pillars: a strong government, the rule of law, and democratic accountability. I would add a fourth: free markets.

Since the inauguration of Mr. Lee Myung-bak, I was very much disappointed with his politics and policies. Not only in economics, but also in many social and political issues, he made many mistakes.

There's one political party in this country, and that's the corporate party.

It is economic power that determines political power, and governments become the political functionaries of economic power.

I'm not a big fan of journalism schools, except those that are organized around a liberal arts education. Have an understanding of history, economics and political science - and then learn to write.

There are many elements needed to secure economic growth. Certainly, people must be politically free to innovate, invest, build, and create things, and they must be incentivized to do so by knowing they can keep the rewards for their efforts.

It is impossible to objectively define how free a market is. This is a political definition. Government is always involved, and those free marketers are as politically motivated as anyone.

Manmohan Singh is the best politician India has seen. I can't say the same about him as an economist.

Any debate among politicians about monetary policy is counterproductive.

Monetary discipline forces fiscal discipline on the politicians as well.

In hip-hop, as in neoliberalism, economics bullied politics out of the picture.

All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting 'the rich' to pay 'their fair share' is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics.

It's called political economy because it is has nothing to do with either politics or economy.

If no man could become rich in Peru, no man could become poor.

The differences in income between the poor world and the rich world are so great that people have to be interested.

Laissez Faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital.

The globalization that has rescued so many in poor countries has harmed some people in rich countries, as factories and jobs migrated to where labor is cheaper.

Rich countries have been sending aid to poor countries for the last 60 years. And, by and large, this has failed.

By 2035, there will be almost no poor countries left in the world. Almost all countries will be what we now call lower-middle income or richer.

Most of the people in the world are poor, so if we knew the economics of being poor, we would know much of the economics that really matters. Most of the world's poor people earn their living from agriculture, so if we knew the economics of agriculture, we would know much of the economics of being poor.