There is certainly no absolute standard of beauty. That precisely is what makes its pursuit so interesting.

It had been held that the economic system, any capitalist system, found its equilibrium at full employment. Left to itself, it was thus that it came to rest. Idle men and idle plant were an aberration, a wholly temporary failing. Keynes showed that the modern economy could as well find its equilibrium with continuing, serious unemployment. Its perfectly normal tendency was to what economists have since come to call an underemployment equilibrium.

In the market economy the price that is offered is counted upon to produce the result that is sought.

The notion that you would initiate a new product without preparing the way by persuasion and advertising and salesmanship is fantastic. It's an integral part of the system.

Washington is a place where men praise courage and act on elaborate personal cost-benefit calculations.

The experience of being disastrously wrong is salutary, no economist should be denied it, and not many are.

I think the role of the Federal Reserve is enormously exaggerated.