The density of settlement of economists over the whole empire of economic science is very uneven, with a few areas of modest size holding the bulk of the population.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I am often considered almost not a part of the profession of Establishment economists. I am even referred to as a sociologist. And by that, economists usually do not mean anything flattering.
People who are rich find it hard to understand the behavior of poor people. Economists are no exception, for they, too, find it difficult to comprehend the preferences and scarcity constraints that determine the choices that poor people make.
Often, economists spend their energies squabbling with one another, but arguably the more important contrast is between our broadly liberal economic worldview and the various alternatives - common around the globe - that postulate natural hierarchies of religion, ethnicity, caste and gender, often enforced by law and strict custom.
I actually profoundly think the world's a better place when economics is fairly boring... The more boring the better.
Economists tend to think they are much, much smarter than historians, than everybody. And this is a bit too much because at the end of the day, we don't know very much in economics.
If in a country, most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, then this country can hardly witness harmony and stability.
That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy is certain.
I do not believe you can have infinite population or economic growth in a finite world. We are living on the shoulders of some awesome geometric curves.
Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while maintaining privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.
The world is richer than ever, and the gaps between rich and poor are wider.
No opposing quotes found.