Quotes About Economic theory

Economics has been called the dismal science. Once you get to understand it, you may not find it so dismal, but you don't find it much of a science either.

Economics never was a dismal science. It should be a realistic science.

There is no such thing as economics, only social science applied to economic problems.

THE WEALTH OF NATIONS is one of the most important and influential books ever written. It

GDP statistics and Keynesian macroeconomic policy were mutually reinforcing.

Even though the transformation of energy, in all of its various forms, is the very basis of all economic activity, only a tiny fraction of economists have even studied thermodynamics. And only a handful of individuals inside the profession have attempted to redefine economic theory and practice based on the energy laws.

I think gas prices are a conspiracy.

Keynes eliminated economic theory's ancient role as spoilsport for inflationist and statist schemes, leading a new generation of economists on to academic power and to political pelf and privilege.

Traditionally in capitalism, when you have more cash, you can fund more activity, which produces more jobs and creates more wealth. That's basic economic theory.

It is true that I am one of the co-authors of 'Nudge,' and I am a behavioral economist, but it does not mean that everything we write about in that book is behavioral economics, nor does it mean that my co-author, the distinguished legal scholar Cass Sunstein, is a behavioral economist.

Evidence and economic theory suggests that control of the Internet by the phone and cable companies would lead to blocking of competing technologies.

As Keynes observed, there cannot be "liquidity" for the community as a whole.6

But when Stigler was put in front of the TV cameras, lights blazing, and asked about supply-side economics, the iconoclastic economist opined that "it's a gimmick, or, if you wish, a slogan." Ouch. That didn't help Ronald Reagan. I presume it didn't help George Stigler either, who was quickly hustled off stage.

Margaret Thatcher: 'Socialism is great—but eventually you run out of other people's money.

Economic theory would tell you that a rational person would take the thirty dollars every time. Forget the other party, the decision was simple. You get thirty dollars or you get nothing. With this logic you would take any positive amount.

In the oft-told joke, one economist says to another, "Sure, it works in reality. But will it work in theory?" Porter's work endures—and is so widely cited and used—because it works in both realms, theory and practice.

Indeed, on a high plane of generality there is nothing very much for economic theory to say to the planner, except: Do not listen to those who say you want this rather than that — agriculture, not industry; exports, not home production; light industry, not heavy. You always want both. [p. 113]

The fact is that during the post-1989 heyday of globalization optimism, political and business elites did not think enough about the prospect - plainly predicted in economic theory - that trade would harm some people even while leaving society as a whole better off. The result was overpromised benefits and inadequate adjustment plans.

You cannot borrow and spend your way into prosperity. It does not work.

Journalists, whose job is to pull back and tell dramatic stories that bring power into focus, find it impossible because things like economic theory are both incomprehensible and, above all, boring. The same is true of 'management science.'

He rejected with scorn as crude, novel and unproven the notion associated with the US economist Art Laffer that marginal tax cuts could yield substantially higher tax revenues and that they had a crucial role in accelerating economic growth.8 And he also favoured according a role to the exchange rate that orthodox monetarists would not.

It has been shown that, in contrast to everything which classical national economy has hitherto taught, not the producer but the consumer is the ruling factor in economic life.

Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else.

I would say I was still a Marxist - which is not to be confused with being a Communist. Despite its flaws, Marxism still seems to explain the material world better than anything else.