It would not be foolish to contemplate the possibility of a far greater progress still.

For my own part, I believe that there is social and psychological justification for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth.

It has been pointed out already that no knowledge of probabilities, less in degree than certainty, helps us to know what conclusions are true, and that there is no direct relation between the truth of a proposition and its probability. Probability begins and ends with probability.

The friends of gold will have to be extremely wise and moderate if they are to avoid a revolution.

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals.

The businessman is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society.

Of the maxims of orthodox finance none, surely, is more anti-social than the fetish of liquidity, the doctrine of that it is a positive virtue on the part of investment institutions to concentrate their resources upon the holding of 'liquid' securities. It forgets that there is no such thing as liquidity of investment for the community as a whole.