The idea of a non-growing economy may be an anathema to an economist. But the idea of a continually growing economy is an anathema to an ecologist.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The economy is not an abstraction. The economy consists of people, and it will only grow if people feel secure and are reasonably free.
If you ask an economist what's driven economic growth, it's been major advances in things that mattered - the mechanization of farming, mass manufacturing, things like that. The problem is, our society is not organized around doing that.
Some say the economy means that you have to persuade people to invest in clothes - to buy less things but more expensive things. I disagree - invest in jewelry, or a house, maybe, but not in fashion.
The way I think of it, economics and ecology occupy two intellectual silos, isolated from each other. Even when they do take each other into consideration, it's not uncommon for ecologists to spout absolute nonsense about economics, and vice versa.
An actual understanding of our economy is that our economy most depends on our rate of innovation... It's not actually understood by most of the people running for office, but it's not in fact disputed.
Economists create their own worlds. We're like little gods with our artificial economics, wanting to see what happens.
An economy growing at 7 percent per year, can and must find the resources to improve the lives of its millions of poor.
There can be economy only where there is efficiency.
Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.
It's not enough to have economic growth. You have to distribute wealth throughout all of society.
No opposing quotes found.