In the usual (though certainly not in every) public decision on economic policy, the choice is between courses that are almost equally good or equally bad. It is the narrowest decisions that are most ardently debated. If the world is lucky enough to enjoy peace, it may even one day make the discovery, to the horror of doctrinaire free-enterprisers and doctrinaire planners alike, that what is called capitalism and what is called socialism are both capable of working quite well.

The problem of the modern economy is not a failure of a knowledge of economics; it's a failure of a knowledge of history.

If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows (referring to "trickle down" economics).

A person buying ordinary products in a supermarket is in touch with his deepest emotions.

Total physical and mental inertia are highly agreeable, much more so than we allow ourselves to imagine. A beach not only permits such inertia but enforces it, thus neatly eliminating all problems of guilt. It is now the only place in our overly active world that does.

The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil.

The drive toward complex technical achievement offers a clue to why the U.S. is good at space gadgetry and bad at slum problems.