Much of my work in this period was concerned with exploring the logic of economic models, but also with attempting to reconcile the models with every day observation.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
For decades, my research was driven by outstanding problems in macroeconomics: mainly growth theory and employment theory.
It's kind of a funny way to put it, but if you want to study a dynamic economic system, what you'd like to be able to do is focus on the linkages, say, between asset markets and the macro economy without having to model everything at the same time.
I had become interested in economics, an interest that was transformed into a lifetime dedication when I met with the mathematical theory of general economic equilibrium.
At the time, my personal research objectives were to provide Keynesian economics with more rigorous foundations and to tighten and elaborate the logic of macroeconomic and monetary theory.
I view the work I've done related to statistics and economics as, roughly speaking, how to do something without having to do everything.
It came as a surprise to find that a professional society and journal (Econometrica) were flourishing, and I entered this area of study with great enthusiasm.
I could try to incorporate or reflect in my models what it is that an employee, manager, or entrepreneur does: to recognize that most are engaged in their work, form expectations and evolve beliefs, solve problems, and have ideas. Trying to put these people into economic models became my project.
Narrative drives most of economics. Everything seems to be part of a story, and how that story is told often leads to critical error.
I began my career as an economics professor but became frustrated because the economic theories I taught in the classroom didn't have any meaning in the lives of poor people I saw all around me. I decided to turn away from the textbooks and discover the real-life economics of a poor person's existence.
I am aiming my books at anybody with no economics background.
No opposing quotes found.