A healthy economics has got to have both conceptual theoretical research and applied empirical research.
Germany Italy and France appear to possess less dynamism than do the U.S. and the others.
A modern economy is marked by the feasibility of endogenous change: Modernization brings myriad arrangements from expanded property rights to company law and financial institutions.
Chancellor Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schaeuble her finance minister are right to oppose fiscal and bank unions without political union.
Entrepreneurs' willingness to innovate or just to invest - and thus create new jobs - is driven by their 'animal spirits ' as they decide whether to leap into the void.
My God I don't know anyone who likes to accumulate their wealth more than the Europeans.
Things can get only so bad. People want to eat so at some point they resist further cuts to their consumption - it's not a bottomless pit.
Overpaying the banks for their toxic assets could contribute capital but that may not be politically feasible or attractive.
What brought mass innovation to a nation was not scientific advances - its own or others' - but 'economic dynamism': the desire and the space to innovate.
To prosper and advance the American business sector is going to need a financial system oriented toward business not 'home ownership.'
Disciples of Keynes who focus on aggregate demand view any increase in household wealth as raising employment because they say it adds to consumer demand.
As a grandson of farmers in downstate Illinois I have long admired the dedication of farmers to their work and have written about the role of agriculture in American innovation.
The need to encourage entrepreneurship and ensure that young people have the opportunity to start new businesses is acute.
In Greece Italy and to a lesser extent France unsustainable tax cuts and spending sprees added to households' estimates of their private wealth relative to their wage income.
When I was in college at Amherst my father asked me a favor: to take one course in economics. I loved it - for the challenge of its mysteries.
There's such a preoccupation with liquidity and such an unwillingness to invest beyond the horizon of the next quarter and making sure that the CEOs hit their quarterly earnings.
An economy open to new concepts and novel ventures is bound to generate unequal gains.
For decades my research was driven by outstanding problems in macroeconomics: mainly growth theory and employment theory.
My view is that innovation has declined in the everyday processes that businesses tinker with incrementally as they try to become more productive over time.
The fallacy of the neoclassicals is their tenet that total employment though hit by shocks can be said always to be heading back to some normal level.
Economists of a classical bent lay a large part of the decline of employment and thus lagging output to a contraction of labour supply.
Egalitarians' who complain about inequality view the wealth of the wealthiest as bad in itself: it disfigures society. They would enact a wealth tax to extirpate the offending wealth.
Some economists believe that the Greeks' work ethic and thrift can pull them through. But the classical virtues can do nothing to offset the dearth of innovation that plagues the economy.
Workers in decent jobs view the economy as unjust if they or their children have virtually no chance of climbing to a higher rung in the socioeconomic ladder.
Liberal redistributionists in favor of heavy taxation place less weight on incentive than do small-government conservatives.
Developing new products is labour- intensive. So is producing the capital goods needed to make them. These jobs disappear when innovation stalls.
In essence capitalist systems are a mechanism by which economies may generate growth in knowledge - with much uncertainty in the process owing to the incompleteness of knowledge.
When public spending in the form of transfer payments makes various services and benefits free of charge work is discouraged. Yet it is precisely Social Security that legislators fear to cut.
The Keynesian belief that 'demand' is always at the root of underemployment and slow growth is a fallacy.
Democrats and Republicans have been very keen to make home ownership almost a national purpose.
No amount of debt restructuring even debt forgiveness will help the Greeks achieve real prosperity. What they need is not short-term relief but rather a long-term cure.
Italy and France could lop off their excessive wealth through a one-time tax on private wealth.
In societies where one sees a higher prevalence of 'modern values' - individualism vitalism and self-expression - there's also higher reported job satisfaction.
Economics has paid a terrible price for its dalliances with the Keynesian and neoclassical theories.
Raising the minimum wage seems to all economists to at the very least fail to 'raise' employment and we'd all like to see better inclusion of low-skilled workers into good-paying jobs.
A nation's economy is more than its markets tastes technologies and property rights.
Unemployment determination in a modern economy was the main subject area of my research from the mid-1960s to the end of the 1970s and again from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s.
I'm old enough to remember in the 1930s and the 1940s when thrift frugality was considered an important virtue.
With less competition to fear companies are emboldened to raise their mark-ups and profits. That lifts share prices and thus the wealth of already wealthy shareholders.
I would like to see people dreaming of striking out on their own into some other country or their own wherever they feel the action is in the hope of an exciting and rewarding career.
Statistical studies are all over the lot about the pluses and minuses of raising the minimum wage.