I think there's a lot of merit in an international economy and global markets, but they're not sufficient because markets don't look after social needs.

Market prices are always wrong in the sense that they present a biased view of the future.

However, even a strong government can't perform miracles. It needs money from the taxpayers.

The lower interest rates fueled housing and consumption booms in countries such as Spain and Ireland. At the same time, Germany, struggling with the burdens of reunification, tightened its belt and became more competitive. All this led to a wide divergence in economic performance. Europe became divided into creditor and debtor countries.

I call government that works the best for people open society, which is basically just another more general term for a democracy that is - you call it maybe a liberal democracy. It's not only majority rule but also respect for minorities and minority opinions and the rule of law. So it's really a sort of institutional democracy.

It's not whether you're right or wrong that's important, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong

The generally accepted theory is that financial markets tend towards equilibrium, and...discount the future correctly. I operate using a different theory, according to which financial markets cannot possibly discount the future correctly because the do not merely discount the future; they help to shape it.