Each profession has its own toolkit.

Economics is (now) about emotion and psychology.

Life's meaning heavily benefits from lifelong bonds.

I often tend to think that things are not what they seem.

Any time you have change, it costs somebody. Somebody is a loser.

News media stimulate bubbles, since stories about them boost their audience.

Trump has never been clear and consistent about what he will do as president.

Oppression thrives on distance - on not actually meeting or seeing the oppressed.

Somehow, talking to young students brings you back to reality - it should, anyway.

There's so much disagreement about investing, and it's because nobody really knows.

Liberalism downplays certain of our moral senses: loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

Trump does magic. Maybe it will be black magic sometime, but he's an amazing phenomenon.

When valuation confidence falls, it means that stock markets are perceived as overpriced.

I didn't vote for Trump. So we've got him. Let's hope for the best. He might do something good.

The ability to focus attention on important things is a defining characteristic of intelligence.

Some of the best theorizing comes after collecting data because then you become aware of another reality.

I am worried that the collapse of home prices might turn out to be the most severe since the Great Depression.

People aren't as impressed by homes anymore after they saw how they collapsed in price with the financial crisis.

That's the world we live in: when it comes to economics, people have emotions; it's not like chemistry or physics.

Manufacturers of food try to get the optimal ratio to tap into your impulsivity. They don't care about your health.

In the short run and for decisions unlikely to have broad impact, it may be more cost effective to use just one expert.

Money management has been a profession involving a lot of fakery - people saying they can beat the market, and they really can't.

The future is always coming up with surprises for us, and the best way to insulate yourself from these surprises is to diversify.

It amazes me how people are often more willing to act based on little or no data than to use data that is a challenge to assemble.

In the longer run and for wide-reaching issues, more creative solutions tend to come from imaginative interdisciplinary collaboration.

Even today, I am easily distracted by reading material and will pick up articles on virtually any factual material if I have the time.

Consider our difficulties avoiding junk food and overspending. Such addictions were carefully planned-for by professional marketing teams.

We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics: more practical than spiritual.

People might just decide, 'Yeah, I'll diversify my portfolio. I'll live in a rental.' That is a very sensible thing for many people to do.

We don't know the probabilities of future events. Still, you have to take action, and so you do it on gut feeling. That's the world we live in.

Marketers know that if people you respect - perhaps laughably including entertainers and athletes - say they like a product, you're more likely to buy.

Diversify, because that helps reduce risk. And you can diversify outside the United States. Some people would never invest in Europe - I think that's a mistake.

In my first few years of elementary school at the Edison School in Detroit, I did poorly. I remember worrying that I might fail the second grade and be held back.

I think we do need to try to not just rely on the central bank to, in its wisdom, adjust interest rates, but allow for people to avoid being exposed to inflation risk.

There is more uncertainty than usual about job futures because computers are replacing more and more human intelligence, and globalization is proceeding at an accelerating pace.

We should not be focusing on quick solutions. The really important concern for policymakers everywhere is to prevent disasters - that is, the outlier events that matter the most.

This is the paradox of thrift: belt-tightening causes people to lose their jobs, because other people are not buying what they produce, so their debt burden rises rather than falls.

One thing I've noticed about history - you can search on newspapers going back hundreds of years, search for 'economic forecast,' you don't find it. It would be very rare to find it.

The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention.

In a perfect world, people don't have to move to another country to get a higher wage. Ultimately, they need only be able to participate in producing output that is sold internationally.

When I see the Trump supporters on television explaining themselves, I don't get a feeling of supreme confidence. They've created a revolution, and now maybe they're a little scared by it.

People who stay unemployed for a long time start to look like damaged goods, and they don't get such good offers. Also, they're not learning anything. Most learning is on-the-job learning.

Finance is not merely about making money. It's about achieving our deep goals and protecting the fruits of our labor. It's about stewardship and, therefore, about achieving the good society.

Critics of 'economic sciences' sometimes refer to the development of a 'pseudoscience' of economics, arguing that it uses the trappings of science, like dense mathematics, but only for show.

One should have a wide variety of assets in one's portfolio. And oil, by the way, is a particularly important asset to have in one's portfolio because we need it, and the economy thrives on it.

As far as I can find, almost no one in the profession - not even luminaries like John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, or Irving Fisher - made public statements anticipating the Great Depression.

A lot of people aren't saving enough. And incidentally, people are living longer now, and health care is improving. You might end up retired for 30 years - people are not really preparing for that.

I have argued that we need livelihood insurance, which would protect people against the risk of seeing their skills and expertise no longer needed. Such insurance could be offered by the private sector.

This is an anxiety driven world - the whole world is driven by anxiety. It is anxiety about the aftermath of the global financial crisis; it's anxiety about inequality and about computers replacing jobs.

My very first publication was an estimator - this was a statistical procedure - a kind of invention. My father got a patent and started a business; it wasn't successful, but maybe I have some of him in me.

Share This Page