I think it is true to say that I am not the first Nobel Prize winner in economics to have little formal training in economics.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I wasn't actually very naturally good at economics. My brain doesn't work very well, in terms of mathematics.
The Nobel Prize in Economics is an incredible recognition for the work that my students, colleagues and I have done over the years. We all worked hard, but we were also lucky that the financial applications were so important.
When, over fifty years ago, I first became interested in economics - as a discipline that provided the key to social structure and social problems - it never crossed my mind that one day I might be the honored recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize.
I'm an economist, not a political scientist.
Unfortunately, a lot of economists wanted to make their subject a science. So the more what you do resembles physics or chemistry, the more credible you become.
Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.
I studied economics and made it my career for two reasons. The subject was and is intellectually fascinating and challenging, particularly to someone with taste and talent for theoretical reasoning and quantitative analysis.
Maybe if you win a Nobel Prize in economics, you make a lot of money by giving talks... but not in my area.
Even though I didn't get a business degree, I enjoyed learning about economics.
I've felt for some time that economics needs to be taught differently by economists who actually have had experience making a payroll or investing on Wall Street. When economics is taught by pure academics, watch out.
No opposing quotes found.